(November 17, 2012 at 3:20 am)Daniel Wrote: In case you hadn't noticed, I was trying to get people here to see how futile it is to get fired up and unruly over such a trivial post.

You are defending a ... 'person' who stated : "don't Atheists know that you can't have morality without God?"
I was raised by two atheist parents so that would imply that my upbringing AND my parents were immoral ...

The free dictionary :

insulting - expressing extreme contempt
contemptuous, disdainful, scornful
disrespectful - exhibiting lack of respect; rude and discourteous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCb3bgUozh4

This thread only lasted this long due to Daniel's defense of his brother in christ. Nothing pleases the big fairy in the sky more than all out defense of christtards, no matter what

(November 17, 2012 at 3:20 am)Daniel Wrote:

(November 16, 2012 at 11:42 am)whateverist Wrote: I'm going to have to stick with ignorant. That is hardly derogatory. The OP simply does not know much about atheists. In his ignorance he assigns positions to us which are the flimsiest of strawmen.

Well I know a lot about atheists, I've had the pleasure of their online company for many years. I find that atheists often present me with straw man arguments, and often fail to explain why their intellect is superior ro mine. Saying this, there are many atheists who have an agenda to push, IMHO. Many - not all, not most, but many.

I've always said it doesn't take a genius to be an atheist. This isn't rocket science. I too have seen atheists stoop to pick apart straw arguments which seem to miss a poster's real point. So being an atheist confers neither superior intelligence nor nobler intent.

But the sorts of literalism associated with religious fundamentalism really do seem to require a stunted intelligence and so often go hand in glove with bias and disingenuousness. I wouldn't paint every theist with the same brush however. There have been too many examples of exemplary individuals who somehow embrace religious faith. They just seem exceedingly rare.

Holy shit. Fourteen pages for a troll?

(November 17, 2012 at 10:35 am)Shell B Wrote: Holy shit. Fourteen pages for a troll?

Nah, screw the troll. Daniel is much more interesting.

(November 17, 2012 at 10:35 am)Shell B Wrote: Holy shit. Fourteen pages for a troll?

C'mon shell, we've had longer.

(November 17, 2012 at 10:37 am)whateverist Wrote: Nah, screw the troll. Daniel is much more interesting.

Daniel's not a troll too? I've never gotten him to stay on topic and defend his viewpoints. I've asked him several times about the Tower of Babel story and he "trollingly" responds about how Noah's flood was localized.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-15335-p...#pid363098 Post 105 - I can't get it to point to the exact post on here for some reason..

(November 17, 2012 at 12:01 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Daniel's not a troll too?

IKR, it's hard enough to tell the trolls from the genuine nutjobs, yet somehow we get chastised for it

He may be but I can't really tell. Perhaps he is trying to interpret the bible as a wisdom story rather than literally? Those who start with the bible as the revealed truth that comes before what they can directly perceive are screwed. The trick to being an intelligent Christian is to find a way to make sense of the bible without going all chapter-and-verse lawyer like. It can be done but you don't often see it.

"Somewhere in the narrative I believe there is a core truth or wisdom that has been (possibly) irreparably garbled in transmission. The source of this core truth or wisdom may be anything, even the combined experiences of all that went into it's manufacture. I choose to believe that this source is god...and assigning to it whatever I can salvage out of the narrative as a whole is useful to me, it allows me to better myself in ways that I have deemed valuable to me. If this source were something other than a god (as I alluded to above) it would matter very little to me, as the truth and wisdom I endeavor to extract from the narrative is an issue of practical, not literal, concern.

I believe that christ's (if christ can be said to -at the very least- be the personification or anthropomorphism of all that we might value in ourselves) example can save me, essentially, from -myself-. From all of the things that might exist within me and devalue this thing I call my self, or soul. This example, like the narrative as a whole, may also have been garbled in transmission, and as such I reserve the right to gather unto me what I find useful and good, and discard that which I do not. "

Maybe something like that Whatevs?