I think you've missed the point of the invisible pink unicorn, that or you're a poe (and its a she, its pink, duh)

@ the othet guy. my point was that there are:

the idiots
the pricks
and the idiotic pricks

the idiots being the ineffective evangalisers, and the pricks being the ones who enjoy the concept of you burning or don't care. At least "the idiots" give a damn about you and don't want to see you burn, which they think is a very real possibility.

(May 27, 2011 at 11:24 am)Emanuel Wrote:

(May 26, 2011 at 1:29 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: So Stue Denim.
Say I paraded around telling everyone they were going to suffer for eternity because they didn't believe that the invisible pink unicorn who rules the earth existed.
Are you saying you'd give me the time of day? or would you be inclined to tell me to fuck off?

People are judged by God according to the things they did. They are not condemned just for not believing He exists; that is just one sin in a very long list.

Now, does the invisible pink unicorn (which is a contradiction anyway, since he cannot have a color and yet be invisible at the same time) has some sort of expectations from us? Does he want us to live in a certain way? Does he have a moral code for us? And why does the invisible pink unicorn want to punish us? What is his motive?

So you're saying I could still go to heaven even though I don't believe god exists? I have a strong feeling many christians/muslims/jews would disagree. What is it which makes you correct?

It's not actually a contradiction btw, something can be invisible and still have a colour. Being invisible is a state, and if the unicorn wanted to show itself then it would become visible as a pink unicorn.

In case you hadn't noticed though it was just an example of a particularly crazy belief.

The thing which makes it such a great example to use is that it's completely made up
I wonder why that is?

---

(May 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: I think you've missed the point of the invisible pink unicorn, that or you're a poe (and its a she, its pink, duh)

Stue I don't really see where you're going with that one.

I used the invisible pink unicorn as an analogy/example, I wasn't talking about it seriously. And btw when did I say it must have been male?

(May 27, 2011 at 11:24 am)Emanuel Wrote: Now, does the invisible pink unicorn (which is a contradiction anyway, since he cannot have a color and yet be invisible at the same time)

How dare you blaspheme the all holy Invisible Pink Unicorn! You obviously don't understand the nature of the IPU. If God can be a trinity, then the IPU can be both invisible and pink at the same time.

(May 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: So you're saying I could still go to heaven even though I don't believe god exists? I have a strong feeling many christians/muslims/jews would disagree. What is it which makes you correct?

I haven't said that, if I recall correctly.

"People are judged by God according to the things they did. They are not condemned just for not believing He exists; that is just one sin in a very long list."

I said God will judge them based on their works. I also said that not believing in Him isn't the sin that gets you condemned; I said it's just one in many sins that do. If may I quote myself, "that [not believing] is just one sin in a very long list". So please, read my posts twice just to be sure before replying.

(May 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: It's not actually a contradiction btw, something can be invisible and still have a colour. Being invisible is a state, and if the unicorn wanted to show itself then it would become visible as a pink unicorn.

While the IPU is invisible, it is not pink, for it's not emitting/reflecting light. When it becomes visible, then it starts emitting/reflecting light which we can detect with our eyes and interpret as colour. You cannot have both at the same time.

(May 27, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: If God can be a trinity, then the IPU can be both invisible and pink at the same time.

You have yet to prove that the Trinity is as helplessly contradictory as an Invisible Pink Unicorn is. Until then, I believe it is a false comparison.

(May 25, 2011 at 5:25 pm)Emanuel Wrote:

(May 25, 2011 at 5:01 pm)technophobe Wrote: I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut why Christians want me to convert. What I want is for them to leave me alone.

When confronted by some moron wanting to know what religion I am, I reply "An atheist Buddhist." Of course, they think I worship Buddha, so my reply generally dumbfounds them.

I'm going to summarize it.

When a person become a Christian, that person experiments something which we call "salvation". We are all sinners thus in enmity with the God of justice. When one becomes a Christian he receives forgiveness, and is given the privilege of being "born-again" and becoming more like Christ, thus lives a life of righteousness. Thus that person comes from death to life. It is pretty much the greatest tipe of salvation one can acheive.

When one becomes an atheist there isn't such a thing called "salvation". There is no "saving" experience for the atheist like the one the Christian experiences. He just encounters the crude reality. It isn't anything like what the Christian experiences. Now since the Christian received 'salvation' -the most beautiful thing from his point of view, and since he is instructed to love his neighbor as himself- it is only natural for him to want to share it.

Perhaps with an analogy you would understand be better? Imagine that two friends are lost in a desert with no water. They get separated for a while and one of them finds a pool with water, an oasis. He drinks and is satisfied and then he goes on. He meets his friend again. Now, wouldn't it be wrong if this person wouldn't mention the oasis to his thirsting friend? This is how it is from the Christian perspective. The dying one is the unbeliever, who's dying of thirst. The other one would be the Christian. Since the Christian found life, it would be wrong for him not to want to share it and let the others die.

I hope I did not write this in vain.

Xtians either from birth or reborn all suffer from the same delusion i.e. " god ". In all probability, " god " doesn't exist.
Atheists are free of delusion, free of fear of judgement, despise the thing you call " god " and simply make the most of life, without feeling the arrogant need to share that belief.
Your desert analogy doesn't help you. Only a selfish friend who is not a friend would keep secret the oasis ( which has been pointed out is a mirage anyway ).
You'll need to do a lot better than this brother!

(May 27, 2011 at 5:54 pm)Emanuel Wrote: I haven't said that, if I recall correctly.

"People are judged by God according to the things they did. They are not condemned just for not believing He exists; that is just one sin in a very long list."

I said God will judge them based on their works. I also said that not believing in Him isn't the sin that gets you condemned; I said it's just one in many sins that do. If may I quote myself, "that [not believing] is just one sin in a very long list". So please, read my posts twice just to be sure before replying.

Oh I read your post.

You said:
"I also said that not believing in Him isn't the sin that gets you condemned"
I said:
"So you're saying I could still go to heaven even though I don't believe god exists?"

If not believing isn't the sin that gets you condemned then technically I can still go to heaven. Prove me wrong judging on what you said.

Quote:

(May 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: It's not actually a contradiction btw, something can be invisible and still have a colour. Being invisible is a state, and if the unicorn wanted to show itself then it would become visible as a pink unicorn.

While the IPU is invisible, it is not pink, for it's not emitting/reflecting light. When it becomes visible, then it starts emitting/reflecting light which we can detect with our eyes and interpret as colour. You cannot have both at the same time.

You are asuming the invisible pink unicorn exists. Seen as it is a figment of my imagination (much like your sky daddy) it does not operate within our existance, so it can be any fucking colour I say it is. OKAY!?

---

(May 27, 2011 at 5:54 pm)Emanuel Wrote: You have yet to prove that the Trinity is as helplessly contradictory as an Invisible Pink Unicorn is. Until then, I believe it is a false comparison.

You have yet to prove the 'TRINITY' exists, so much like the invisible pink unicorn, I think it's a very good comparison.

(May 27, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: Oh I read your post.

You said:
"I also said that not believing in Him isn't the sin that gets you condemned"
I said:
"So you're saying I could still go to heaven even though I don't believe god exists?"

If not believing isn't the sin that gets you condemned then technically I can still go to heaven. Prove me wrong judging on what you said.

Yes, you are right. I was trying to say something but I expressed myself incorrectly. Forgive me.

(May 27, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: You are asuming the invisible pink unicorn exists. Seen as it is a figment of my imagination (much like your sky daddy) it does not operate within our existance, so it can be any fucking colour I say it is. OKAY!?

So you are admitting that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is made up and isn't part of reality, so it doesn't exist. Good to know.

(May 27, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: You have yet to prove the 'TRINITY' exists, so much like the invisible pink unicorn, I think it's a very good comparison.

You guys have not yet provided proof the the Trinity is as contradictory as an Invisible Pink Unicorn. Doubting Thomas said: "If God can be a trinity, then the IPU can be both invisible and pink at the same time". In order for his claim to be valid, be must first prove that the Trinity is truly as contradictory as an IPU. He is basically saying: "If you accept the Trinity as real while it being so contradictory, then I also accept the IPU as real even though it is contradictory." But yet he is only making assumptions. He must defend his position that the Trinity is contradictory with some sort of proof. I may accept his proof as valid or not, but he must present some proof first, and I think we both agree on this. So in this case it is not relevant whether the Trinity or the IPU exist or not. We are dealing with the concepts here.

Yeah, I'm BEGINNING to hate religious people too!

Quote:Stue I don't really see where you're going with that one.

I used the invisible pink unicorn as an analogy/example, I wasn't talking about it seriously. And btw when did I say it must have been male?

That part wasn't aimed at you, the christian guy kept calling the IPU (who does't exist and who's believers shall be smited by his noodely apendage) "he".