(May 31, 2017 at 9:13 pm)Valyza1 Wrote:

(May 31, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Can they, can they be something other than nutballs?  If they can, they sure don't employ that ability very often.

In my experience, human beings are multifaceted.  You can apply any label you like for the sake of convenience, but at the end of the day, you can't capture their value on a hook.

-agreed, but that doesn't change the contents of my experience or address my comment in the least.  OFC people are multifaceted., and sometimes those multifaceted people act in very, very strange ways.  

Quote:Well, then I agree with you there.  I never suggested ridicule makes them believers in the first place.  I only suggested the fish are going to flap their hardest when caught on the hook.  Also, that it isn't a service to anyone but the fisherman or those ordering fish.  I hate the analogy, and I don't know what eating the fish would be analogous to, but I'm doing my best with it.  

Hahaha, well stop expanding it, then?  If the fish realizes that it's fucking up...ostensibly, a service has been done -for- the fish.  I'm not sure how it benefits me personally, much, though..for some nutter to realize he's a nut.  I wouldn't know that though, having never talked anyone out of a belief to see what benefit it confers me.  

Quote:I don't care if you're an atheist or theist, it isn't my place to determine how you can or can't behave.  You can go out and murder a bunch of kids, and it still wouldn't be my place to tell you you're wrong, even though I would try to help preventative measures like the effort to keep you locked up.  But I do consider it my place in a discussion forum to have a discussion worth having, and the topic of what's a better way to respond is interesting to me and i think is worth sharing my views on.  

Some of that is a bit odd, but I'll focus on where we agree.  I also think that the topic of what;s a better way to respond is an interesting one..and I, personally, allow for some ridicule in the mix of whatever the total composition of that better way is.  I think it has utility, it's limited utility..but isn't all utility limited?  

Quote:. I agree and would never expect anyone to shield me from the consequences of sharing my beliefs.  That doesn't mean I shouldn't share my opinions on what are better and worse ways to respond.  They may not do any good for you, but maybe they will for someone else.  Not only that, but I wouldn't even know for sure how they affect you until I actually post them in the first place.  I'm perfectly aware of what I might invoke by posting them, and accept the risk, because I find the potential rewards to be worth it.

You are sharing your views, I don't see why you think we're talking about keeping you from doing so....as we talk about your views.  Left field.  I've already told you that I prefer the nuttiest of nuts to be talkative nuts.

(June 1, 2017 at 12:01 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(May 31, 2017 at 9:13 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: In my experience, human beings are multifaceted.  You can apply any label you like for the sake of convenience, but at the end of the day, you can't capture their value on a hook.

-agreed, but that doesn't change the contents of my experience or address my comment in the least.  OFC people are multifaceted., and sometimes those multifaceted people act in very, very strange ways.  

I may have misunderstood your comment, then. You literally asked if they could be something other than nutballs. I responded that people are multifaceted, meaning yes, they can be all kinds of things. No one is, of necessity, consecrated to any character label others place on them. I'm sure you can be a nutball sometimes, too. I'm sure we all can. But it's not all we are. We can communicate with each other and actually help each other in positive ways like fellow human beings. We don't have to agree or have the same beliefs to do so. And if you agree with that, then all I'm adding to the sentiment is that ridicule makes it harder to communicate as such.

Quote:

Quote:Well, then I agree with you there.  I never suggested ridicule makes them believers in the first place.  I only suggested the fish are going to flap their hardest when caught on the hook.  Also, that it isn't a service to anyone but the fisherman or those ordering fish.  I hate the analogy, and I don't know what eating the fish would be analogous to, but I'm doing my best with it.  

Hahaha, well stop expanding it, then?  If the fish realizes that it's fucking up...ostensibly, a service has been done -for- the fish.  

This is why I don't think that's quite the analogy that's going to help your case, because the fish isn't fucking up at all. It's acting perfectly normal for a fish and is being tricked. It's a more apt analogy for villain/victim situations than this one, unless you mean to imply that you're a villain.

Quote:I'm not sure how it benefits me personally, much, though..for some nutter to realize he's a nut.  I wouldn't know that though, having never talked anyone out of a belief to see what benefit it confers me.  

I'm not talking about talking theists out of their beliefs. I talking about communicating with people about their beliefs despite our opposing viewpoints. Getting to know a person as an individual and their views as an individual can be it's own benefit. And likewise with them getting to know me and mine. There's no agenda.

Quote:

Quote:I don't care if you're an atheist or theist, it isn't my place to determine how you can or can't behave.  You can go out and murder a bunch of kids, and it still wouldn't be my place to tell you you're wrong, even though I would try to help preventative measures like the effort to keep you locked up.  But I do consider it my place in a discussion forum to have a discussion worth having, and the topic of what's a better way to respond is interesting to me and i think is worth sharing my views on.  

Some of that is a bit odd, but I'll focus on where we agree.  I also think that the topic of what;s a better way to respond is an interesting one..and I, personally, allow for some ridicule in the mix of whatever the total composition of that better way is.  I think it has utility, it's limited utility..but isn't all utility limited?  

I don't quite know the answer to that question, but I think it's a matter of degree. Some utility is more limited that others.

Quote:

Quote:I agree and would never expect anyone to shield me from the consequences of sharing my beliefs.  That doesn't mean I shouldn't share my opinions on what are better and worse ways to respond.  They may not do any good for you, but maybe they will for someone else.  Not only that, but I wouldn't even know for sure how they affect you until I actually post them in the first place.  I'm perfectly aware of what I might invoke by posting them, and accept the risk, because I find the potential rewards to be worth it.

You are sharing your views, I don't see why you think we're talking about keeping you from doing so....as we talk about your views.  Left field.  I've already told you that I prefer the nuttiest of nuts to be talkative nuts.

Yes, I know (and thanks for implying that
I'm the nuttiest of nuts ). I was just affirming that I realize there's a difference between self-censorship and being unwelcome, lest it appear to anyone that I don't.

(June 1, 2017 at 11:20 am)Valyza1 Wrote: I may have misunderstood your comment, then.  You literally asked if they could be something other than nutballs.  I responded that people are multifaceted, meaning yes, they can be all kinds of things.   No one is, of necessity, consecrated to any character label others place on them.  I'm sure you can be a nutball sometimes, too.  I'm sure we all can.  But it's not all we are.  We can communicate with each other and actually help each other in positive ways like fellow human beings.  We don't have to agree or have the same beliefs to do so.  And if you agree with that, then all I'm adding to the sentiment is that ridicule makes it harder to communicate as such.  

"Sometimes" is generous.  I'm two hairs shy of a chimpanzee -all- the time.  Ridicule probably does make it harder to communicate some ideas to some people, undue deference, however, makes it difficult to communicate all ideas to any people.  

Quote:I don't quite know the answer to that question, but I think it's a matter of degree.  Some utility is more limited that others.

Sure.  There are hammers, and then there are hammers designed to strike a specific nail.  

Quote:Yes, I know (and thanks for implying that
I'm the nuttiest of nuts ).  I was just affirming that I realize there's a difference between self-censorship and being unwelcome, lest it appear to anyone that I don't.

I actually didn't intend to convey that as an implication.....but it would have been pretty choice if I had.  Are you one of the nuttiest nutters, in your estimation?  How do you, personally, respond when you meet the nuttiest of nutters?  Is there any line to cross or specific belief that, when you're presented with a person who holds it..causes you to either back away from that person..or involuntarily laugh in their face?

(June 1, 2017 at 11:48 am)Khemikal Wrote: undue deference, however, makes it difficult to communicate all ideas to any people.  

How so? I mean I think there's a basic deference due to every human being based both on the impact we have on each other and our own ignorance of each other's perspectives, and I hope I haven't unduly gone beyond that basic deference. But if I have, how does that make every idea harder to communicate to whomever I "over-respected", so to speak?

Quote:

Quote:Yes, I know (and thanks for implying that
I'm the nuttiest of nuts ).  I was just affirming that I realize there's a difference between self-censorship and being unwelcome, lest it appear to anyone that I don't.

I actually didn't intend to convey that as an implication.....but it would have been pretty choice if I had.  Are you one of the nuttiest nutters, in your estimation?  How do you, personally, respond when you meet the nuttiest of nutters?  Is there any line to cross or specific belief that, when you're presented with a person who holds it..causes you to either back away from that person..or involuntarily laugh in their face?

I don't think of myself as the nuttiest, no. I worked with someone who told me the moon landing was a conspiracy. I don't remember how the conversation went exactly, but I remember not caring enough about it to make much of an effort thinking about it. And I think I told him that more or less, too. Were that posted in a forum, I might find it interesting to ponder, but it was in person at my job and I was too busy with other things to focus on a subject I didn't really care all that much about. I'll back away from any conversation I don't want to have, regardless of the reason. Can't say I've ever involuntarily laughed in someone's face. I've laughed inappropriately a few times, but usually because I've either misunderstood social expectations, or couldn't get some sort of humorous feeling out. I don't think the subject of it has ever been someone's beliefs, though.

(June 1, 2017 at 12:48 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: How so?  I mean I think there's a basic deference due to every human being based both on the impact we have on each other and our own ignorance of each other's perspectives, and I hope I haven't unduly gone beyond that basic deference.

It would be irrelevant if this were true, since what we're discussing is affording a persons relifgious ideas undue deference, not affording a person basic or undue deference.

Quote: But if I have, how does that make every idea harder to communicate to whomever I "over-respected", so to speak?  

I don't know whether or not you've ever done that, I only know that in this thread you offer a middling support -for- it.  Everyone who has a sacred cow thinks that their sacred cow should be sacred.  That some things are too rude or uncouth or uncivil..to say, about their sacred cow.  All well and good.  However, if we accepted this, and applied it uniformly...we'd find that all cows are sacred, to someone.  

Not knowing beforehand every specific of what a person believes would then put you in the unfortunate position of tossing the dice every time we opened our mouths to anyone, of being "too unkind, too rude, uncivil - of ridiculing people.....".  Ofc, this is all a massive red herring...we're ridiculing a belief....but never mind that, because a simple "Happy Holidays" is ridicule and sacrilege and heresy....to someone.

Quote:I don't think of myself as the nuttiest, no.  I worked with someone who told me the moon landing was a conspiracy.  I don't remember how the conversation went exactly, but I remember not caring enough about it to make much of an effort thinking about it.  And I think I told him that more or less, too.

So, essentially, you belittled his position as an inane irrelevance?  Some people take offense to that.  Should we show deference to such ideas, on the off chance that we are talking to such a person?  

Quote: Were that posted in a forum, I might find it interesting to ponder, but it was in person at my job and I was too busy with other things to focus on a subject I didn't really care all that much about.  I'll back away from any conversation I don't want to have, regardless of the reason.  Can't say I've ever involuntarily laughed in someone's face.  I've laughed inappropriately a few times, but usually because I've either misunderstood social expectations, or couldn't get some sort of humorous feeling out.  I don't think the subject of it has ever been someone's beliefs, though.  

I think that moon landing conspiracies count as nutty beliefs.  Some of the nuttiest, actually..in my experience.

I know, I know...that people will generally say "well, I'm not talking about showing deference or undue deference to -that- idea or to -all- ideas....just this one, or that one." -There's your sacred cow. Take a number. Let;s talk about a specific religious idea. How about actual sacred cows? If a person who believes that cattle are sacred and not to be harmed is eating at a table...should some sort of basic deference for either the person or his ideas imply or insist that I should refrain from eating beef? Do the religious sensibilities of some nutter create a civil obligation on -my- diet? If they do...what sorts of things go the other way? What sorts of things should nutters not do...in the presence of an atheist? What deference is due to atheists, or atheist ideas?

How about drinking alcohol around a muslim..or for that matter.... in a muslim country?

(May 31, 2017 at 11:16 am)Khemikal Wrote: Mea culpa, it seems that you have a more internally confused position on matter than I expected.  Even though you've often commented on the disturbing meaninglessness of life and death in the absence of god..

Because I can imagine the emptiness or lack of consciousness before I was born. and simply apply that to eternity future.

Quote:you also seem to harbor fear of future suffering in the event that god -does- exist.

Because believe it or not I experienced the judgement and being cast into Hell ever it be for a short moment or two.

Quote: I don't.

I didn't when I was in your shoes either. Now I know better.

Quote:  I don't harbor fear of future suffering if god does exist, or if god doesn't.  It seems to me that death will be difficult for you regardless, but..I guess, you think not.  

Well actually now that I know what to expect and have properly prepared for death I would like to think I should welcome it when it comes for me.
As I have no fear of oblivion nor judgement.

Quote:Meh, that doesn't concern me either.  

Got your judgement day defense straigeity down do you?? going to tell God off and put him in a paradoxical situation and freeze him from action are you?
Good luck with that one sport.

Just one question.. What if the attributes of God you are using to lock God into a paradox of morality are not attributes of the God of the bible/The God judging you?

Quote:I never believed in god to begin with, so I didn't have to talk myself in or out of anything.  You say alot of things.....lol.  Death, meanwhile is just as difficult, or easy...to me, regardless of the god question.

You sure know/assume a lot about what you do not believe in.

Quote:You have faith based fears in that regard.  I don't.  If your beliefs were even remotely accurate, I guess I'd be standing there giving an account of my life.  And?  Is this the part where I'm supposed to quiver with fear and gnash my teeth and beg for gods grace?  Probably not what's going to happen, eh, certainly hasn't happened yet.  

For me the 'fear happen' when I woke up from this life in the real world, and faced judgement. Because I knew if this much was true then I was not going to be there long. For the moments I was there I felt complete and connected. I knew I had made some very bad mistakes.

Quote:As I mentioned previously, these little fears of yours have a limited subset of applicability.  

Again now, I've faced both. I know where I stand and what I believe. There is no fear. I have been tempered and tested I know I am good one way or the other. You on the other hand reek of the same boisterous fear I had before I was judged. (Go back to my hell thread, and I too listed the reasons I was not afraid.) The thing with fear is you do not know how you will react until you have been tested by it.

Remember fear is the opposite of rational. You can only pretend to rationally tell me what you will do when facing your fear.

Quote:Namely, yourself.  It may be easier, for you (lol?) to die if there's no god..fearing that gods judgement of you...but I don't fear judgement.  I'm afraid of stuff like the dark, and snakes...judgement, from a god or any other thing....just doesn't show up on that list.

yeah, Good luck with that sport.

(June 1, 2017 at 3:11 pm)Drich Wrote: Because I can imagine the emptiness or lack of consciousness before I was born. and simply apply that to eternity future.

Sure, and I'm not really arguing any point with you, only noticing that thios very darkness is what you seek to avoid by squeezing the god lemon.  If there were no god...you'd just cease to exist.  You're hoping for more (in fact you're sure of it).  At the same time...some part of you probably fears gods judgement for this and that.  At least sometime.  It;s a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario with respect to the prospect of deaths difficulty, in your case.

It;s just that none of that, absolutely none of it..is going on in -my- head.

Quote:Because believe it or not I experienced the judgement and being cast into Hell ever it be for a short moment or two.

Yeah, that hell you describe as nothingness, not demons poking people with sticks.  So, again, no point in arguing, just making an observation. You want to avoid that.  There are two ways to end up like that..god existing -or- not existing, but only one way to end up in heaven...god existing and letting you in.

Quote:I didn't when I was in your shoes either. Now I know better.

Cool story?  It just doesn't change that fact that I don't feel the way you feel, fear what you fear, or believe what you believe..so your comment regarding ease of death simply doesn't apply to me.  None of the necessary conditions are true, of me...no matter how true they may be of you.

Quote:Well actually now that I know what to expect and have properly prepared for death I would like to think I should welcome it when it comes for me.
As I have no fear of oblivion nor judgement.

Like I said before, more confused than I originally thought..but okay?  

Quote:Got your judgement day defense straigeity down do you?? going to tell God off and put him in a paradoxical situation and freeze him from action are you?
Good luck with that one sport.

What judgement day?  What defense.  I doubt that I'll have to inform the lord of creation of anything regarding myself or my life if I ever met the schmuck.  He should already know, being the lord of creation and whatnot.  There's nothing I -can- do to effect that judgement, or trick that god..or whatever the hell it is you think atheists are planning on doing....the thought having crossed your own christ-addled mind?  

Quote:Just one question.. What if the attributes of God you are using to lock God into a paradox of morality are not attributes of the God of the bible/The God judging you?

It's not god's paradox.  God does what god does, god is what god is..if god is.  I'm just telling you what I can and can't do.  

Quote:You sure know/assume a lot about what you do not believe in.

Okay, let's check.  Is there a way for me to be saved without the death of the better man?  If not, then I can't be saved.  Pretty much the end of that right?  I don;t need to know any more to know that it isn't available to -me-.  

Quote:For me the 'fear happen' when I woke up from this life in the real world, and faced judgement. Because I knew if this much was true then I was not going to be there long. For the moments I was there I felt complete and connected. I knew I had made some very bad mistakes.

Okay?  And?  What I;ve been trying to explain to you..is that no amount of any of these stories being true has an effect on me or my position....so no amount of testimonials, from you, is going to speak to anything that would apply to me.  

Quote:Again now, I've faced both. I know where I stand and what I believe. There is no fear. I have been tempered and tested I know I am good one way or the other. You on the other hand reek of the same boisterous fear I had before I was judged. (Go back to my hell thread, and I too listed the reasons I was not afraid.) The thing with fear is you do not know how you will react until you have been tested by it.

Hey, we finally made it to the important part, describing all the ways that drich is holier than khem.  Well....no shit?  You;re kind of the believer of the bunch, right?

Quote:Remember fear is the opposite of rational. You can only pretend to rationally tell me what you will do when facing your fear.

Sure, fear can make people do strange things.  Is that how the god of love and mercy plans to bring me to the fold?  Scare me into doing what it wants..like some common waterboarder?  

Quote:yeah, Good luck with that sport.

..............?  lol

(June 1, 2017 at 2:39 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Everyone who has a sacred cow thinks that their sacred cow should be sacred.  That some things are too rude or uncouth or uncivil..to say, about their sacred cow.  All well and good.  However, if we accepted this, and applied it uniformly...we'd find that all cows are sacred, to someone.  

Are you talking about if we accepted that their sacred cows are sacred to them or accepting that those cows should be sacred to everyone? I see no issue respecting the fact that someone has their own personal sacred cow, and if I'm made aware of what that cow is, I have no issue with adjusting my behavior around them accordingly. That's practically second nature to me. I do have an issue if they are expecting me personally to have the same sacred cow. Mainly because while it's possible to act as if I do, it's not possible to actually have a scared cow I don't naturally have. So I'm not sure to what precisely you're referring when you say "if we applied it uniformly". Apply what uniformly?

Quote:

Quote:I don't think of myself as the nuttiest, no.  I worked with someone who told me the moon landing was a conspiracy.  I don't remember how the conversation went exactly, but I remember not caring enough about it to make much of an effort thinking about it.  And I think I told him that more or less, too.

So, essentially, you belittled his position as an inane irrelevance?  Some people take offense to that.  Should we show deference to such ideas, on the off chance that we are talking to such a person?  

Um, no, I did not belittle his position in the slightest. I told him it wasn't a subject I was interested in and for all I know, he could be right. That it would really take some time and thought to go over and this wasn't the time and place, blah, blah. You could say my initial internal reaction was that it was nonsense, but I recognize that for what it is: a reaction. It doesn't make ridicule an appropriate response. Likewise with any human reaction before thought and reflection set in, even if it's external. Just because you react one way, doesn't mean the wiser part of yourself finds it justified.

Quote:If a person who believes that cattle are sacred and not to be harmed is eating at a table...should some sort of basic deference for either the person or his ideas imply or insist that I should refrain from eating beef?

Nope. Deference for someone else's beliefs does not mean changing yours. If you believe there's nothing wrong with eating beef, then eat your beef. If you think there might be something wrong with it, then work it out. If the other person believes that you shouldn't eat meat, then ignore or discuss. I don't see how ridicule would help things.

Quote:Do the religious sensibilities of some nutter create a civil obligation on -my- diet? If they do...what sorts of things go the other way? What sorts of things should nutters not do...in the presence of an atheist? What deference is due to atheists, or atheist ideas?

All I mean by deference is respecting the fact that just because they believe something intangible and different than you doesn't automatically mean that they're "wrong". You have your beliefs and they have theirs. They don't have to be universally evident facts to be worthy of respect. That's the kind of deference I believe is due to everyone, theist or atheist.

Quote:How about drinking alcohol around a muslim..or for that matter.... in a muslim country?

Could be dangerous, but I don't think there's anything inherently disrespectful about it, unless your intention is to provoke them.

(June 1, 2017 at 10:28 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: Are you talking about if we accepted that their sacred cows are sacred to them or accepting that those cows should be sacred to everyone?  I see no issue respecting the fact that someone has their own personal sacred cow, and if I'm made aware of what that cow is, I have no issue with adjusting my behavior around them accordingly.  That's practically second nature to me.  I do have an issue if they are expecting me personally to have the same sacred cow.  Mainly because while it's possible to act as if I do, it's not possible to actually have a scared cow I don't naturally have.  So I'm not sure to what precisely you're referring when you say "if we applied it uniformly".  Apply what uniformly?

The stifling deference, to every sacred cow, of every nutter. 

Quote:Um, no, I did not belittle his position in the slightest.  

I get that -you- don't think you did..but that doesn't matter, with respect to deference of some other persons sacred cow.  

Quote:I told him it wasn't a subject I was interested in and for all I know, he could be right.  That it would really take some time and thought to go over and this wasn't the time and place, blah, blah.  You could say my initial internal reaction was that it was nonsense, but I recognize that for what it is: a reaction.  It doesn't make ridicule an appropriate response.  Likewise with any human reaction before thought and reflection set in, even if it's external.  Just because you react one way, doesn't mean the wiser part of yourself finds it justified.  

You don't get to decide what other people experience or interpret as ridicule..just one of the many problems with this deference.  

Quote:Nope. Deference for someone else's beliefs does not mean changing yours.  If you believe there's nothing wrong with eating beef, then eat your beef.  If you think there might be something wrong with it, then work it out.  If the other person believes that you shouldn't eat meat, then ignore or discuss.  I don't see how ridicule would help things.  

I didn't ask you anything about changing my beliefs, or even bring it up.  I asked you whether or not some deference was due, to avoid hurting that religious persons religious sensibilities.  I'm not even talking about ridiculing them, just wondering what sort of obligations deference places upon me in a given situation....or do you have your own sliding scale of when, to whom, and to what deference is due?

Quote:All I mean by deference is respecting the fact that just because they believe something intangible and different than you doesn't automatically mean that they're "wrong".  You have your beliefs and they have theirs.  They don't have to be universally evident facts to be worthy of respect.  That's the kind of deference I believe is due to everyone, theist or atheist.

I don;t think that people are wrong just because they believe something different from me, and I'm not sure what the relevance would be to our discussion?  I don;t have "my beliefs" in any case, if the other quantity is "their beliefs"...but equating all positions as equal beliefs is a common mistake theists make.  

Beliefs do, in my opinion, have to be worthy of respect to be shown respect.  The beliefs of nuitters are not worthy of respect...regardless of their truth. Some of them, hilariously, would be even -less- respectable if they were true. Al;l that rescues those beliefs, and those people, is that it's a flight of fancy.

Quote:Could be dangerous, but I don't think there's anything inherently disrespectful about it, unless your intention is to provoke them.

Deference made you misapprehend the question.  I'm wondering, since there's some sort of deference due to muslims...apparently..if there's deference due to atheists.  Shouldn't muslims..and muslim countries..just shut their mouths about alcohol, and let people who don't believe as they believe drink a damn drink?  Provocation..by drinking...and maybe then I shouldn't do it?  Why not?  What should they not do, then...to provoke me?

Why does this deference only seem to apply to nutters and their ridiculous beliefs?

(June 1, 2017 at 3:11 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 31, 2017 at 11:16 am)Khemikal Wrote: Mea culpa, it seems that you have a more internally confused position on matter than I expected.  Even though you've often commented on the disturbing meaninglessness of life and death in the absence of god..

Because I can imagine the emptiness or lack of consciousness before I was born. and simply apply that to eternity future.

Quote:you also seem to harbor fear of future suffering in the event that god -does- exist.

Because believe it or not I experienced the judgement and being cast into Hell ever it be for a short moment or two.

Quote: I don't.

I didn't when I was in your shoes either. Now I know better.

Quote:  I don't harbor fear of future suffering if god does exist, or if god doesn't.  It seems to me that death will be difficult for you regardless, but..I guess, you think not.  

Well actually now that I know what to expect and have properly prepared for death I would like to think I should welcome it when it comes for me.
As I have no fear of oblivion nor judgement.

Quote:Meh, that doesn't concern me either.  

Got your judgement day defense straigeity down do you?? going to tell God off and put him in a paradoxical situation and freeze him from action are you?
Good luck with that one sport.

Just one question.. What if the attributes of God you are using to lock God into a paradox of morality are not attributes of the God of the bible/The God judging you?

Quote:I never believed in god to begin with, so I didn't have to talk myself in or out of anything.  You say alot of things.....lol.  Death, meanwhile is just as difficult, or easy...to me, regardless of the god question.

You sure know/assume a lot about what you do not believe in.

Quote:You have faith based fears in that regard.  I don't.  If your beliefs were even remotely accurate, I guess I'd be standing there giving an account of my life.  And?  Is this the part where I'm supposed to quiver with fear and gnash my teeth and beg for gods grace?  Probably not what's going to happen, eh, certainly hasn't happened yet.  

For me the 'fear happen' when I woke up from this life in the real world, and faced judgement. Because I knew if this much was true then I was not going to be there long. For the moments I was there I felt complete and connected. I knew I had made some very bad mistakes.

Quote:As I mentioned previously, these little fears of yours have a limited subset of applicability.  

Again now, I've faced both. I know where I stand and what I believe. There is no fear. I have been tempered and tested I know I am good one way or the other. You on the other hand reek of the same boisterous fear I had before I was judged. (Go back to my hell thread, and I too listed the reasons I was not afraid.) The thing with fear is you do not know how you will react until you have been tested by it.

Remember fear is the opposite of rational. You can only pretend to rationally tell me what you will do when facing your fear.

Quote:Namely, yourself.  It may be easier, for you (lol?) to die if there's no god..fearing that gods judgement of you...but I don't fear judgement.  I'm afraid of stuff like the dark, and snakes...judgement, from a god or any other thing....just doesn't show up on that list.

yeah, Good luck with that sport.

Drich 
It makes sense to me why you believe in this invisible God. You sound like you've had some experience with sin, fear of death, you were cast into hell believe it or not. Not, but I see where your coming from. God can help focus you away from your own fears and problems, but what your not realizing is you are still afraid and lying to yourself for comfort. I did that for years. Sometimes I still do that. Different coping mechanisms work, but God is a distraction from reality. 
Good luck with that sport