RE: Bald People are Dangerous
January 21, 2013 at 2:10 pm
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2013 at 2:46 pm by Drich.)
(January 21, 2013 at 2:53 am)Ryantology Wrote: I think it's time to let you in on a little secret.
When we anti-theists talk about judging God, it is something of a joke. Your god isn't real. We don't assume he is. You can't impress us with this horse shit about righteousness and power because it is obviously a lie.
Since we are sharing secerets... Allow me to share one of ours. When a person verbably claims to not believe in god, But then spends most of his time condemning the "Moral actions" of God (Like sending 2 bears to kill 42 kids) and go on and on about the parents and how terrible God, was and on and on the 'morality of a all loving God.. Then even though the person says he doesn't believe in God the person is still judging God. Which makes the person's comments fair game to address what the person's arguement reflects. Even if said d-bag when cornered, always defaults to the panic button of not believeing in God.
I do not believe in alah as being God. Subsequently I do not argue Islamic doctrine. why? Because if their God is indeed nothing then what is the point of argueing? My actions reflect my beliefs. And appearently if a person argues God to be immoral rather than address the morality of His believers, then the d-bag in question is also argueing what he believes even if he will not openly admit it.
Quote:What we are, in truth, judging is the evil and immoral faith which revolves around this fictional character, and the followers who perpetuate this evil. We are judging you for being a willing accomplice in a four thousand year reign of terror overseen by priests and ministers claiming to be the earthly representatives of this false god, spilling blood in his name and doing everything imaginable to sabotage human progress unless you can control it completely.
Another little hint (as it is not an actual seceret.) Maybe try addressing the focous of your accusation directly, rather than address God. (or a second party.) for instance If I say, God did "X" and you said why does God do "X" I thought God does "Y" Then the topic shift from me repersenting God to you asking questions about God, despite what you claim to believe. Subsequently all responses dealing with the nature of God that spawn from your line of questioning are valid when they directly answer what you have asked. If you are finding the answers given to be inconsistant with what you tell yourself you believe then look to your own failure to phrase a question that reflects what you claim to believe. I will only give you answers to the questions that you ask.
Quote:We don't rebel against God. We rebel against your religion. And, we're winning.
of course you are. As no one from this site has changed their views to belief in God, and all but one Christian is now an Atheist..
Oh, lordy what will I do? Oh wait I had that backwards never mind.
Quote:Bit by bit, the influence of your invented faith is diluted by secular and humanist ideals. The only reason your religion has survived is by adapting those ideals and revising your entire dogma so that it appears they were there from the start (I have to give you credit for not doing this, at least; you have been entirely forthright about the animal brutality of the faith you waste your time on).
You know vultaire said the same thing: "That Christianity will be dead with in 100 years of my death." He said that because recently published works of darwin and the made dash (or at least what he thought was a mad dash) to turn faith in God over to faith in science. You know that 100 years came and went right? and that Genevia publishing printed bibles in his house 50 years after he died. volaire has all been lost to history and yet Christianity remains. Your claims will meet a similar end, because no matter how history has changed us over the last 2000 or so years God has remained the one constant.
Quote:If your God was real, you'd be right. There'd be no recourse for us and in the end, you'd be vindicated and we'd be damned. It is most unfortunate for you that this will never happen. You will die and join the rest of us in the total oblivion from whence you came, which sucks because you'll never even have the chance to feel that sense of crushing disappointment when you find out that you've wasted your life preparing for a non-existent afterlife.
After What I have seen, and the adventure that i have lived to this point I would be ok with oblivion if that was indeed the fate of all of us. For i have already accomplished more then most, and regret nothing. The fact is, that I can accept your fate if it awaits me, I ask can you accept my reality if it awaits you? Or will you simply shroud yourself in denial and not answer the question? Are you ready to stand before God with the same crap arguements levy against me, and try and justify what you believe?
Truthfully If I can shoot you down to the point where you claim not to believe in God because that is the defination of the word 'atheist.' What will you say when you are standing before your Final judge?
It will be exceeding hard to not believe in God when standing in Judgement infront of Him.
Quote:I can't make you believe any of that, of course, but your opinion is as irrelevant as your superstitions. To paraphrase the great Hitch, your faith is an obsolete relic of humanity's ignorant infancy. We're growing up. You'll be discarded like the used diapers you are.
We will see. I can't wait for you to find out.
(January 21, 2013 at 9:57 am)Stimbo Wrote: I love it when Drich ascends to insults. That's when he makes the most sense.
(Sorry, Drichy, you know I like you really! )
I know you do stimmy, but what insults are you referring?
(January 21, 2013 at 12:54 pm)RichardP Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='389525' dateline='1358748097']
http://atheistforums.org/thread-16669-page-6.html Post 60 the last two paragraphs.
I
Quote: will explain my viewpoint better. I believe that people should be free to set up their own website and run it in the manner that they choose. It's like private property. It's their website, they get to make the rules.
This freedom, this liberty, is not worldwide. In China, in certain parts of the Middle East, certain websites are forbidden (Like Facebook in China).
It seems that your argument is against free speech. You seem to be arguing that websites like this should not be allowed to exist.
Are you kidding me? I have openly endorsed this site on Christian forums. i even brought over one or two people.
Your just making stuff up.
(Things that you think to be true about ALL christians)
Quote: And you seem to be arguing that people should not be allowed to criticize certain ideas and books.
I am just looking for proof.
If one of us were to claim that darwins theorys have been disproved, then you all would cry out for proof. In turn if one of you cries out or misrepersents an established biblical reference book has been found to be largly innacurate, then are we to remain silent? Do we not have the right to ask for the same proof?
Quote:Your total and complete reverence of the Bible is what sets you apart ideologically from us. We don't view the Bible as a reference that you can use to defend a position.
You REALLY Need to read a little more before you post.
What was being discussed if a given concordance/lexicon was accurate. Subject matter aside the acual translative content was being called into question. All of this is verfiable and fact based. Just because it is attached to religion in general does not mean it can all equally be dismissed just because it does not fit with what you believe.
For instance even if I believe the quran to be a false book of God, I can not dismiss the translation material used to convert the orginal text to english. That is why I asked for proof to back up minnie's claims.
Minnie like to be involved in a discussion so long as it does not breach his 3 line involvement rule. (Meaning if a post goes beyond a 3 line comment he wants nothing to do with it.)
Quote:The argument that one thing in the Bible is "proven" by something else in the Bible is meaningless to us.
again this is not what is being discussed.
In either of the two topics Minnie made claims He could not back. One being to the validity of early church Martyrs (To which He claimed their weren't any) I provided 10 points of reference to the fact that History acknoweledges that early church suffered heavy losses of life under Roman rule, to which He posted one Anti God site that supported his position. He dismissed all 10 of my reference points (which included the enclypedia, two secular unitversities, and a PBS documentry along with 5 or 6 other sites) because the PBS site was too "hollywood" and can not be trusted.
Then He went on in this thread to make a simlar claim about the Strongs lexicon/concordance. My only crime here is to asked the most popular member here to account for what he claimed. I asked him to prove what He claimed. to which I have been insulted misrepersented and jeered. Minnie is a big boy, and should be made to stand behind what he claims. That or i ask that he not repersent 'personal feeling' as fact. I am trying to hold Minnie and the rest of you up to the same standard in which you hold the christians on this site.
Now tell me how this is censoring free speach?
[quote='Brakeman' pid='389751' dateline='1358790520']
You should have seen him before Jesus worked on him! If the son of god in all his infinite goodness can only get a christian as good as Drich, then what does that say about his "infinite power and wisdom?"
I thought theological debate was your thing? What happened thier whay have you stopped and started name calling?
