Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
genghiscant

Pictures instead of words?

http://monicks.net/2012/01/18/whe...y-i-have-a-problem-with-religion/
Leonard James

It's sad that such attitudes exist, but we can only keep fighting against them.

Religion, unfortunately, is often the seed from which they grow. Thank goodness the majority of religious people aren't that daft.
SceptiKarl

And there was I thinking Jesus was some kind of peace loving hippie!

Ah well, the muslims are just as bad, if not far worse! But then I think that has far more to do with the USA's foreign policy, than religion.
Lexilogio

I think these are examples of where people use religion to try to back up their pre existing prejudice.

Jesus was about love, and accepting everyone for who they are. I think he'd have some pretty harsh words for some so called "churches", just as he did for the Pharisees.
northernstar

So you are saying there is good and bad in all religions? Funny how atheists don't burn down places of worship but Christians and Muslims do. Indonesia for example.
The Boyg

northernstar wrote:
Funny how atheists don't burn down places of worship but Christians and Muslims do.


No, in the Soviet Union they blew them up instead.

(Cue chorus of "they weren't real atheists, soviet communism was a pseudo-religion, they weren't blown up 'in the name of' atheism", etc.   )
gone

I think these are examples of where people use religion to try to back up their pre existing prejudice.

I agree.
northernstar

The Boyg wrote:
northernstar wrote:
Funny how atheists don't burn down places of worship but Christians and Muslims do.


No, in the Soviet Union they blew them up instead.

(Cue chorus of "they weren't real atheists, soviet communism was a pseudo-religion, they weren't blown up 'in the name of' atheism", etc.   )


Was St Basil's cathedral blown up? Can you give any examples or is this just your usual tripe?
The Boyg

northernstar wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
northernstar wrote:
Funny how atheists don't burn down places of worship but Christians and Muslims do.


No, in the Soviet Union they blew them up instead.

(Cue chorus of "they weren't real atheists, soviet communism was a pseudo-religion, they weren't blown up 'in the name of' atheism", etc.   )


Was St Basil's cathedral blown up?

No. Did I say that they blew up every church in the Soviet Union?  

Quote:
Can you give any examples or is this just your usual tripe?


No tripe:
Quote:
In Moscow over 400 churches and monasteries were dynamited, including the famous Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)[/url]
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers...of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
for further background.

I await your response.  
northernstar

Communists are not necessarily atheists.
The Boyg

northernstar wrote:
Communists are not necessarily atheists.


As predicted:
Quote:
Cue chorus of "they weren't real atheists, soviet communism was a pseudo-religion, they weren't blown up 'in the name of' atheism", etc.


You have actually read the articles and the reasons why this happened, haven't you?

Denial isn't just a river in Africa, you know.  
gone

northernstar wrote:
Communists are not necessarily atheists.


I agree. Isn't Castro a Catholic?
Leonard James

Communism, the belief that everybody is entitled to a fair share of everything, is closer to what Jesus taught than any other ideology.

But as with all ideologies, in the hands of the wrong people it can be abused.
gone

Leonard James wrote:
Communism, the belief that everybody is entitled to a fair share of everything, is closer to what Jesus taught than any other ideology.

But as with all ideologies, in the hands of the wrong people it can be abused.


Maybe he would be singing, "We'll keep the red flag flying here", if he was around today.
Leonard James

Willow wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Communism, the belief that everybody is entitled to a fair share of everything, is closer to what Jesus taught than any other ideology.

But as with all ideologies, in the hands of the wrong people it can be abused.


Maybe he would be singing, "We'll keep the red flag flying here", if he was around today.

More likely "The world belongs to everyone". :)
gone

Leonard James wrote:
Willow wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Communism, the belief that everybody is entitled to a fair share of everything, is closer to what Jesus taught than any other ideology.

But as with all ideologies, in the hands of the wrong people it can be abused.


Maybe he would be singing, "We'll keep the red flag flying here", if he was around today.

More likely "The world belongs to everyone". :)


Could be.
The Boyg

Willow wrote:
northernstar wrote:
Communists are not necessarily atheists.


I agree. Isn't Castro a Catholic?


Was Castro blowing up churches in the Soviet Union in the early part of the 20th Century Floo?

No.

So how is he relevant to the fact that atheists were doing that there then?
northernstar

Communists, not atheists.
cyberman

northernstar wrote:
not atheists.


Do you have any evidence that those blowing up churches were "not atheists", or are you just guessing?
The Boyg

northernstar wrote:
Communists, not atheists.


It obviously failed to penetrate last time, so I'll try again:
The Boyg wrote:
northernstar wrote:
Communists are not necessarily atheists.


As predicted:
Quote:
Cue chorus of "they weren't real atheists, soviet communism was a pseudo-religion, they weren't blown up 'in the name of' atheism", etc.


You have actually read the articles and the reasons why this happened, haven't you?

Denial isn't just a river in Africa, you know.  
SceptiKarl

Presumably the reference to Stalin's USSR and the blowing up of churches, is supposed to be a telling point about non-belief?

First of all please define "communist" for me. Does it just mean a supporter, willingly or otherwise, of Stalin's dictatorship in the the USSR? Or does "communist" mean someone who believes in the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution?  Anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading the Communist Manifesto, will know that communism/socialism is "the absence of buying and selling". Now that never happened in the USSR. Workers still worked for wages, and supported a privileged class of parasites, lived in great poverty, died in its wars and suffered all the hardships that workers elsewhere in the world suffered. There was never any socialism / communism in Russia, China, Cuba, and other places. Only a form of state capitalism, in competition with other countries whether allegedly "communist" or blatantly capitalist in outlook.

Yes Stalin took atrocious acts against the churches and clergy, but he also took atrocious acts against just about anyone else, whom he considered might be a threat to his hold on political power. This included, peasant farmers, doctors, scientists, army officers, party members and even of course Politburo members. No-one was safe from Stalin! Oh and don't forget, Stalin made friends again with the church during WW2, as "mother Russia" was far more important than lofty ideals!


Whatever else, the Russian Orthodox Church could hardly claim to be a friend of socialism! No wonder Stalin attacked the reactionary religion that had helped keep the Tsars in power for centuries.

And this same Stalin had trained as a priest for 5 years!

Cheers SK  
The Boyg

SceptiKarl wrote:
Presumably the reference to Stalin's USSR and the blowing up of churches, is supposed to be a telling point about non-belief?


No.

Read back a few posts and you will see that it was simply in response to Northernstar's statement that it is:
Quote:
Funny how atheists don't burn down places of worship


Now I couldn't find any specific examples of atheists burning down churches but I could find examples of atheists blowing up churches which, as I'm sure you'll agree, is just as bad.
SceptiKarl

The Boyg:

Quote:
Now I couldn't find any specific examples of atheists burning down churches but I could find examples of atheists blowing up churches which, as I'm sure you'll agree, is just as bad.


I am utterly opposed to human beings using explosives for whatever reason except perhaps for the useful work of things like extracting minerals, building roads, demolishing redundant buildings and the like. I don't believe in God, but I would never consider destroying either church buildings or believers. Believe it or not, I love Gothic cathedrals. When I was in Liverpool a while ago, I must admit I preferred the Catholic cathedral to the Anglican one. I appreciate them as containing the hard work done by countless humans over many, many years. But I live in Britain, which has been relatively politically stable for some centuries. Russia in the 20th century wasn't in that position. Any supposed or actual opposition to the de-facto dictatorship of the Communist Party wasn't tolerated. Stalin made sure of that.

So yes, I agree, blowing up churches is a bad thing. Blowing up the twin towers in the name of Allah, was just awful. (Again, I suspect they were more driven by opposition to the USA's foreign policy, than theological motives).

Cheers SK  
The Boyg

SceptiKarl wrote:
But I live in Britain, which has been relatively politically stable for some centuries. Russia in the 20th century wasn't in that position.


But Northernstar wasn't referring to Britain either in the point that he made that I was countering:
northernstar wrote:
Funny how atheists don't burn down places of worship but Christians and Muslims do. Indonesia for example.
SceptiKarl

The Boyg:

Quote:
Indonesia for example.


Bali? Or have you forgotten the night club bombing?

IMO humans are far more precious than buildings.

Cheers SK  
The Boyg

SceptiKarl wrote:
The Boyg:

Quote:
Indonesia for example.


Bali? Or have you forgotten the night club bombing?


No.

But then I don't see how that's relevant to Northernstar's claim that atheists don't burn down churches (or, presumably, engage in other acts of violence against the religious).
cyberman

The Boyg wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
The Boyg:

Quote:
Indonesia for example.


Bali? Or have you forgotten the night club bombing?


No.

But then I don't see how that's relevant to Northernstar's claim that atheists don't burn down churches (or, presumably, engage in other acts of violence against the religious).


It is not relevant at all, but the atheists round here will do anything other than address a point which gives them discomfort. Their beliefs make them happy, and they don't like to have them challenged.
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:

It is not relevant at all, but the atheists round here will do anything other than address a point which gives them discomfort.

Not the intelligent ones, who recognise that there are nutters among the followers of all beliefs.
Quote:
Their beliefs make them happy, and they don't like to have them challenged.

It would be nice to read and deal with a serious challenge to atheism, but one never appears.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:

It is not relevant at all, but the atheists round here will do anything other than address a point which gives them discomfort.

Not the intelligent ones, who recognise that there are nutters among the followers of all beliefs.
Quote:
Their beliefs make them happy, and they don't like to have them challenged.

It would be nice to read and deal with a serious challenge to atheism, but one never appears.


The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?
Leonard James

cyberman wrote:
The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?

No, I don't. As I have already observed, there are stupid people among the followers of all beliefs, just as there are very clever ones.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?

No, I don't.


In which case you don't appear to be contributing anything to that particular strand of the debate with your posts.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?

No, I don't.


In which case you don't appear to be contributing anything to that particular strand of the debate with your posts.

Disagreeing with somebody is a perfectly acceptable contribution to a debate, especially when backed by a pertinent observation.

Watch and learn, my friend.
cyberman

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?

No, I don't.


In which case you don't appear to be contributing anything to that particular strand of the debate with your posts.

Disagreeing with somebody is a perfectly acceptable contribution to a debate, especially when backed by a pertinent observation.

Watch and learn, my friend.


So you are contributing in order to register the fact that you disagree with northernstar?
Leonard James

Quote:
So you are contributing in order to register the fact that you disagree with northernstar?

In this instance I was simply answering a question that you asked me.[/quote]
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?

No, I don't.


In which case you don't appear to be contributing anything to that particular strand of the debate with your posts.

Disagreeing with somebody is a perfectly acceptable contribution to a debate


How did your disagreement with cyberman contribute to the discussion about northernstar's comments regarding atheists and the burning down of churches?
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?

No, I don't.


In which case you don't appear to be contributing anything to that particular strand of the debate with your posts.

Disagreeing with somebody is a perfectly acceptable contribution to a debate


How did your disagreement with cyberman contribute to the discussion about northernstar's comments regarding atheists and the burning down of churches?

I didn't disagree with him, I simply answered the question he put to me.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cyberman wrote:
The belief which is being challenged here is northernstar's belief that atheists don't destroy churches.

Do you share that belief, Leonard?

No, I don't.


In which case you don't appear to be contributing anything to that particular strand of the debate with your posts.

Disagreeing with somebody is a perfectly acceptable contribution to a debate


How did your disagreement with cyberman contribute to the discussion about northernstar's comments regarding atheists and the burning down of churches?

I didn't disagree with him, I simply answered the question he put to me.


So who were you disagreeing with then? Yourself?
Leonard James

Quote:
So who were you disagreeing with then? Yourself?

He asked me if I shared NS's view on something and I said no.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
So who were you disagreeing with then? Yourself?

He asked me if I shared NS's view on something and I said no.


So who were you disagreeing with?
SceptiKarl

FFS, so atheists burnt down or blew up churches? So bloody what?

No doubt the Christians who felt it necessary to destroy other Christians during WW2 felt they were doing what was their "duty".  No doubt the Christian God blessed Big Boy as fell onto Hiroshima. Too bad for the "false" God, Emperor Hiroshito! An evil bastard by anyone's standards!

The British Christians who bombed Hamburg, Dresden and other Christian places in Germany no doubt felt they were doing the "right" thing. The German Christians who bombed London, Coventry, Glasgow and elsewhere, no doubt felt the same.

Where was Jesus? Nowhere to be found!

Even when Christian Bush and Blair agreed on an invasion of Iraq, (both having had their consciences cleared by God), were the atheist "believers" ever consulted about the destruction of about 1 million Iraqis? NO!

No doubt Jesus would approve?

Cheers SK  
Grantus Maximus

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
So who were you disagreeing with then? Yourself?

He asked me if I shared NS's view on something and I said no.


So who were you disagreeing with?


Don't tell 'im Pike...
The Boyg

SceptiKarl wrote:
FFS, so atheists burnt down or blew up churches? So bloody what?


'So what' is that Northernstar (erroneously) suggested that they don't do this and he was being corrected.
The Boyg

Grantus Maximus wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
So who were you disagreeing with then? Yourself?

He asked me if I shared NS's view on something and I said no.


So who were you disagreeing with?


Don't tell 'im Pike...


Your name vill also go in ze book.
bnabernard

whistle while you work............

bernard (hug)
Leonard James

Will somebody tell me if Boyg is Magi from the other forum? I strongly suspect he is, and I do not want to waste more time if that is so.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Will somebody tell me if Boyg is Magi from the other forum? I strongly suspect he is, and I do not want to waste more time if that is so.


I do not go by the name of 'Magi' on any forum.

But if you're finding my questions too difficult to answer you only have to say so and I'll try to make them easier.  
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Will somebody tell me if Boyg is Magi from the other forum? I strongly suspect he is, and I do not want to waste more time if that is so.


I do not go by the name of 'Magi' on any forum.

But if you're finding my questions too difficult to answer you only have to say so and I'll try to make them easier.  

Don't bother! Now I know who you are I won't be answering your posts.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Will somebody tell me if Boyg is Magi from the other forum? I strongly suspect he is, and I do not want to waste more time if that is so.


I do not go by the name of 'Magi' on any forum.

But if you're finding my questions too difficult to answer you only have to say so and I'll try to make them easier.  

Don't bother! Now I know who you are I won't be answering your posts.


If you're finding my questions too difficult to answer you only have to say so and I'll try to make them easier.

gone

Leonard has more intellectual ability in his little finger than is apparent in the posts of some of his detractors!  
The Boyg

Willow wrote:
Leonard has more intellectual ability in his little finger than is apparent in the posts of some of his detractors!


No he hasn't.

(If you supply the supporting evidence for your assertion Floo then I will gladly reciprocate).
SceptiKarl

Every Easter and Christmas the Pope gets up in St Peter's Square and prays for peace in the world. Every single year the poor old Pope is disappointed because God doesn't answer his prayers. The Pope is an intelligent man, indeed a scholar! How many years will it take the Pope to become an atheist, because he finally realises that praying is useless and that he might as well learn to make a good minestrone soup (or German sausage) as opposed to asking God for favours?

I mean asking God to interfere with His Divine Plan? Now that would be surely considered an impertinence?

Farmer Geddon

SceptiKarl

Yes Farmer, that's all very well, but what else did the religions do for humanity?

Apart from bugger all?

Powwow

Well we sure know what atheists have done.
http://th142.photobucket.com/albums/r109/ruralmaoism/th_stalin.jpg
http://www.marxists.org/reference...ao/images/1966-reviewing-army.jpg
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/mass-grave.jpg
Leonard James

pow wow wrote:
Well we sure know what atheists have done.
http://th142.photobucket.com/albums/r109/ruralmaoism/th_stalin.jpg
http://www.marxists.org/reference...ao/images/1966-reviewing-army.jpg
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/mass-grave.jpg

And of course, no Christian has ever done anything wrong!  
Powwow

Really? I say Christians have.
Leonard James

pow wow wrote:
Really? I say Christians have.

Indeed ... just like atheists.
Powwow

I suppose you think that atheists and Christians are both human as well.lol
Honey 56

northernstar wrote:
Communists are not necessarily atheists.


By the same token, terrorists, paedophiles, idiots and bigots are not necessarily religious.  
SceptiKarl

Honey 56:

Quote:
By the same token, terrorists, paedophiles, idiots and bigots are not necessarily religious.


Of course not. There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!
Leonard James

SceptiKarl wrote:
Honey 56:

Quote:
By the same token, terrorists, paedophiles, idiots and bigots are not necessarily religious.


Of course not. There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!

Make the story daft enough and there will always be some goggle-eyed fool who will believe it!
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!

Make the story daft enough and there will always be some goggle-eyed fool who will believe it!


Are you branding all Christians "goggle-eyed fools" Leonard for believing in the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension?
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!

Make the story daft enough and there will always be some goggle-eyed fool who will believe it!


Are you branding all Christians "goggle-eyed fools" Leonard for believing in the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension?

Yes, but with the qualification that they are simply the victims of cultural indoctrination.

I was once one of them, and freely admit to my foolishness at that time.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!

Make the story daft enough and there will always be some goggle-eyed fool who will believe it!


Are you branding all Christians "goggle-eyed fools" Leonard for believing in the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension?

Yes, but with the qualification that they are simply the victims of cultural indoctrination.


So you're saying that they wouldn't be "goggle-eyed fools" otherwise.

But surely foolishness is an intrinsic quality?

Your comment seems like nothing more than bigotry to me: "you are fools because you believe in something that I don't".

You are claiming to be better than other people (unless you think that there is no value judgement attached to calling someone else a "goggle-eyed fool") solely because you are an atheist.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:

So you're saying that they wouldn't be "goggle-eyed fools" otherwise.

But surely foolishness is an intrinsic quality?

No it isn't. Some people can be foolish about some things and very unfoolish in others. I myself am guilty of it.

Quote:
Your comment seems like nothing more than bigotry to me: "you are fools because you believe in something that I don't".

I am not in the least concerned what it seems like to you ... you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a nit-picking bore.
Quote:
You are claiming to be better than other people (unless you think that there is no value judgement attached to calling someone else a "goggle-eyed fool") solely because you are an atheist.

Another idiotic statement. I don't claim to be better just because I am not so easily fooled ... in fact I had nothing to do with the ability, it was simply the luck of the genetic lottery.
Shaker

A few random thoughts:

The Boyg wrote:
So you're saying that they wouldn't be "goggle-eyed fools" otherwise.

That's debatable at least.

Quote:
Your comment seems like nothing more than bigotry to me: "you are fools because you believe in something that I don't".

That doesn't necessarily and inherently follow - people who believe in, for example, (party political) Conservatism believe in something I don't but I don't think they're fools on account of it: I think that they think they have good reasons for their belief in that political system and could give a good account of them if called upon to do so. I think those reasons are lacking and I don't think they're correct: I think their beliefs are more often than not wrong and more often than not contribute overall to the sum total of human unhappiness in the world. But they're not fools.

You can have a reasonable discussion about political beliefs, though, which in my eyes you simply can't about religious beliefs. The latter don't offer the reason, logic and evidence that you can in principle and usually in practice get with political debate, so the two things are not on level pegging.

Quote:
You are claiming to be better than other people (unless you think that there is no value judgement attached to calling someone else a "goggle-eyed fool") solely because you are an atheist.

Doesn't that apply to anyone and indeed everyone? Would Leonard or anybody else be an atheist if he/they didn't think that atheism was most likely the true and accurate stance about the nature of reality? Doesn't exactly the same go for theists too? The parity ends there because as I've already said, the two stances are not equal when it comes to reason, logic and evidence, but partisanship as applied to one's own political or religious or philsophical or culural beliefs is hardly news to anyone, surely. Nobody ever says "I'm a staunch Labour supporter, but socialism is a load of old cobblers and Labour supporters are all vermin - myself included." Surely everybody holds their worldview or belief system because they think it is true and right: you wouldn't hold that worldview unless you believe that those who believe otherwise, whichever way you dress it up and however much soft soap to apply to it or however you sugar the pill, are simply wrong.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
You are claiming to be better than other people (unless you think that there is no value judgement attached to calling someone else a "goggle-eyed fool") solely because you are an atheist.

I don't claim to be better just because I am not so easily fooled ... in fact I had nothing to do with the ability, it was simply the luck of the genetic lottery.


So you think that, as an atheist, you are genetically superior to Christians (who you claim are all "goggle-eyed fools").
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
A few random thoughts:

The Boyg wrote:
So you're saying that they wouldn't be "goggle-eyed fools" otherwise.

That's debatable at least.


That's what Len claimed. Christians are all "goggle-eyed fools" by virtue of the fact that they hold Christian beliefs.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
A few random thoughts:

The Boyg wrote:
So you're saying that they wouldn't be "goggle-eyed fools" otherwise.

That's debatable at least.


That's what Len claimed. Christians are all "goggle-eyed fools" by virtue of the fact that they hold Christian beliefs.

If so many Christian didn't act like goggle-eyed fools so much of the time I doubt that the accusation would sting quite as much as it evidently does such that you would need to repeat it as you have  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
A few random thoughts:
The Boyg wrote:
So you're saying that they wouldn't be "goggle-eyed fools" otherwise.

That's debatable at least.

That's what Len claimed. Christians are all "goggle-eyed fools" by virtue of the fact that they hold Christian beliefs.

If so many Christian didn't act like goggle-eyed fools so much of the time


Len said that Christians are all "goggle-eyed fools" by virtue of their beliefs and not of their actions though Shaker.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a nit-picking bore.


And you are just a rude old man who thinks that being an atheist makes him superior but who doesn't have the guts to come out and admit his bigotry.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Len said that Christians are all "goggle-eyed fools" by virtue of their beliefs and not of their actions though Shaker.

Wouldn't their actions be inspired by their beliefs? Aren't beliefs (as I think Sam Harris puts it) engines of action?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Len said that Christians are all "goggle-eyed fools" by virtue of their beliefs and not of their actions though Shaker.

Wouldn't their actions be inspired by their beliefs? Aren't beliefs (as I think Sam Harris puts it) engines of action?


But Leonard wasn't calling Christians "goggle-eyed fools" because of their actions though.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a nit-picking bore.


And you are just a rude old man who thinks that being an atheist makes him superior but who doesn't have the guts to come out and admit his bigotry.

Yes, dear, anything you say!
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a nit-picking bore.

And you are just a rude old man who thinks that being an atheist makes him superior but who doesn't have the guts to come out and admit his bigotry.

anything you say


Refreshing to see you finally admit it old man.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a nit-picking bore.

And you are just a rude old man who thinks that being an atheist makes him superior but who doesn't have the guts to come out and admit his bigotry.

anything you say


Refreshing to see you finally admit it old man.

Except that he's not admitting anything. I assume, on extremely good evidence, that he doesn't want to get drawn into another almost endless  and tedious non-debate with a tiresome wanker of a troll who can never actually answer a straight question or put forward any opinion of his own. Given how you slimed and squirmed your way through the "Do Christians believe in evolution?" thread in your usual unctuous and evasive manner and finally ran away from it like a blubbering coward when backed into the corner of being faced with answering questions that you had no intention of answering and more likely no ability to answer, he is entirely correct so to do.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Given how you slimed and squirmed your way through the "Do Christians believe in evolution?" thread in your usual unctuous and evasive manner and finally ran away from it like a blubbering coward when backed into the corner of being faced with answering questions that you had no intention of answering


That's strange. I got the impression that it was you who had "bravely run away" when you refused to answer the point about your refusal to provide a defintion for a term that you introduced to the discussion having already exhausted every obfuscatory tactic at your disposal:

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Now, are you going to provide the definition of "supernaturalism" that you are working with here or are you going to continue to duck, weave and evade?

It seems perfectly acceptable to you when you continually duck, weave and evade simple questions, so I guess I have every right to consider it perfectly acceptable for me to do the same.


This is you refusing to define a term that you have introduced to the discussion then.



I can see, by your decision to throw nasty insults here rather than returning to the scene of your emasculation, that despite this being days old your forced retreat still rankles with you.  
Shaker

Quote:
That's strange. I got the impression that it was you who had "bravely run away" when you refused to answer the point about your refusal to provide a defintion for a term that you introduced to the discussion

- Which of course you did first when you referred, without definition, to a Christianity (ostensibly minus supernatural elements) perfectly compatible with the scientific method and an apparently entirely distinct Christianity with supernatural elements, which isn't - according to you -
Quote:
I can see, by your decision to throw nasty insults here rather than returning to the scene of your emasculation, that despite this being days old your forced retreat still rankles with you.

No forced retreat - I just know when my time is being wasted by a slimy and evasive twat incapable of actual debate or discussion. And those I never forget.

It definitely doesn't rankle given that you were the one who slunk away with your tail between your legs  
Powwow

Leo and Shaker, what's up old timers? They stop serving prune juice at the old folks home?
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a nit-picking bore.

And you are just a rude old man who thinks that being an atheist makes him superior but who doesn't have the guts to come out and admit his bigotry.

anything you say


Refreshing to see you finally admit it old man.

Shaker has answered this quite efficiently and with much better words than I could have chosen.

Essentially, I have long been aware of your tiresome and pointless form of posting, but I foolishly respond at times, even when I know that the sensible thing to do is ignore you completely.

I am walking proof of the adage that 'there is no fool like an old fool' ... but there ya go, we all have to get old (unless we die young, of course!)
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
I am walking proof of the adage that 'there is no fool like an old fool' ...


Quite. And a bigot that thinks he is better than others by virtue of his lack of belief (according to your statements) to boot.
Honey 56

SceptiKarl wrote:
Honey 56:

Quote:
By the same token, terrorists, paedophiles, idiots and bigots are not necessarily religious.


Of course not. There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!


No it doesn't I agree, who believes the above BTW?
SceptiKarl

Quoting me Honey56 says:

Quote:
There again believing that a dead man, (previously born of a virgin), rose up on the 3rd day and levitated Himself to heaven to sit beside Himself on His own right hand side, doesn't exactly provide good credentials for the interpretation of reality!



Quote:
No it doesn't I agree, who believes the above BTW?


Well Honey, you obviously don't believe in the Bible then! It's all there, - honest! Or perhaps you could point out the bits which aren't from the Bible?
Farmer Geddon

Is this picture true?

Has science proved Buddhism wrong on certain beliefs and did they change it?





Does Christianity change its beliefs, when proved wrong by Science?
Powwow

Science hasn't proved Christianity wrong. Science and Christianity are buddies. Don't read the Bible like a science text Luci. It was written to reveal God's relationship to humanity. In all my life I have never picked up my Bible and read it to learn science.lol
Note, the lama didn't admit to science proving any wrongs in his Budha babble and reincarnated state.LOL
Farmer Geddon

So that's a "No" then?
Powwow

So Luci,  have you got some one in mind to change Christianity? LOL Good luck

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum