(May 14, 2013 at 2:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Same answer NoMore. What you will choose is what God saw you doing after you chose it. God is there at the end of the universe with the score sheet. The good news is that you got to heaven. How much you punish yourself on the way is your choice.

That doesn't address the question, though. Given god's knowledge of not only all the outcomes, but all the possible outcomes in a person's life, why make them actually go through those outcomes? Clearly god doesn't need to test you as he knows all decisions you can or could make, regardless of whether you actually are put in the situation or not, and if the ultimate point of life is to make the choice between god or not god, why the uneccessary step of actually going through it? Why not skip the middleman?

I don't get your point FNM. You're saying that you shouldn't live the life you're judged upon. Then on what are you judged? What were the choices? Is your question: "Why isn't the universe a theoretical model rather than an actual model?"? If God skipped the middleman, he should also skip everything.

God did test you. He didn't skip to the end before you made the choices. You had to make those choices first.

IOW FNM, Frodo isn't denying the absurdity of the situation - he's rolling around in it gleefully.

IDK Cin....the thread may not be derailed at all......

(May 14, 2013 at 2:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't agree with you ron. The media of the civilised world is predominantly atheist IMO. This space is certainly predominantly atheist of course. Perhaps it matches my surroundings most accurately. Perhaps I enjoy the different perspectives I find here from a wide vareity of faith positions. Maybe an atheist perspective is the truly questioning one where the widest exploration of differing positions is possible.

I certainly don't complain about lack of representation.

I'm not here to split hairs, but you said in the initial post, "Seems like the theist minority is lacking a place to laugh at atheists as we must."

Apparently I misinterpreted your statement. I thought you meant on this site, not in general. I thought this because of the title of your post: "AF Hall of Shame (Theist edition)." But you're talking about in general, evidently, or in your native country. Whatever, let's get past that.

You find media---in general---to be predominantly atheistic? Wow, let's all head for Wales. Ahh, but would we like it there, or is it the very opposition to prevalent (in the States, anyway) Xianity upon which we atheists thrive? Of course these things are relative. In Iran, the predominant view is Islam, and opposing it can get you beheaded, and few of us thrive on that. Which is not to say Xianity is inherently more tolerant than Islam, historically or even in modern times. While the atheist mightn't get beheaded here today, he can still lose his job, be ostracized and persecuted for atheism---hell, why don't we just swap passports?

By media being atheist, do you mean actively so, or simply that they don't mention God? Hardly the same thing. Because I don't see much atheist media, at least around here---though we're in a global society on the internet, anyway. So, even though you're traveling through largely Godless country on this website, as a theist---with 33.39% of the globe professing Xianity and 22.74% professing Islam--- you can take heart from the fact that we lowly unbelievers constitute only a few percent.

I'm gibbering. Apologies for any confusion or misinterpretation of your words.

Incidentally, not that it matters, but it isn't "Ron."

C. Neron

Ah I see. Apologies Chris, I failed to get your wider point.

I did mean on this site, yeah. I don't complain about the theistic minority being so. I was simply making a thread for theists, who number quite a few, to have a place to share humour not understood because of the prevelant world view here. There was also a bit of a tease because theists don't want to be seen to be making fun of their prey mission. And also... to relax and not be so fundie about being so pure. Real people respect real people. No one respects a fake.

Where's home to you? I was thinking of Hollywood and mainstream TV. To me the message is anti religion. Sure there's a cap tipped in bland drama and badly done comedy. Everthing in the UK is predominantly atheistic, or perhaps secular. Oh how we laugh at the prudish yanks portrayed on those kid swap shows. Those people are unreal. People in the UK are prosecuted for not letting gays stay in their hotels, or sacked for wearing a crusifix.

(May 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Apologies Chris,

I dunno if you're yanking my chain or not, but it isn't "Chris," either.

The moniker is cneron. C. Neron---as in Caesar Nero, the scourge of the Christians. The fabled Number of the Beast is thought by some to refer to him. It's a pseudonym.

Anyway, did you ever get any nominees for the AF Hall of Shame (Theist Edition)? I ain't naming names, but there are some people I don't even want on my side that might merit mention. One was recently banned...

(May 14, 2013 at 8:17 pm)cneron Wrote:

(May 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Apologies Chris,

I dunno if you're yanking my chain or not, but it isn't "Chris," either.

The moniker is cneron. C. Neron---as in Caesar Nero, the scourge of the Christians. The fabled Number of the Beast is thought by some to refer to him. It's a pseudonym.

Anyway, did you ever get any nominees for the AF Hall of Shame (Theist Edition)? I ain't naming names, but there are some people I don't even want on my side that might merit mention. One was recently banned...

I nominate this one...

(May 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm)catfish Wrote:

(May 14, 2013 at 8:17 pm)cneron Wrote: I dunno if you're yanking my chain or not, but it isn't "Chris," either.

The moniker is cneron. C. Neron---as in Caesar Nero, the scourge of the Christians. The fabled Number of the Beast is thought by some to refer to him. It's a pseudonym.

Anyway, did you ever get any nominees for the AF Hall of Shame (Theist Edition)? I ain't naming names, but there are some people I don't even want on my side that might merit mention. One was recently banned...

I nominate this one...

(May 14, 2013 at 8:39 pm)cneron Wrote:

(May 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm)catfish Wrote: I nominate this one...

And this one too.
.

Catfish, do you remember a time when you were at least trying to say something when you posted?

Quote:Where's home to you? I was thinking of Hollywood and mainstream TV. To me the message is anti religion.

Can you provide some examples? This interests me, though it's hard to discuss without knowing what, exactly, you mean when you say anti-religion. I don't see that coming out of America, and even here in Australia, where religion is barely mentioned at all, when it is there's a kind of wheedling assumption that it's a good thing, all of the time.

Quote: Sure there's a cap tipped in bland drama and badly done comedy. Everthing in the UK is predominantly atheistic, or perhaps secular.

Secular and anti religion aren't synonyms.

Quote: Oh how we laugh at the prudish yanks portrayed on those kid swap shows. Those people are unreal. People in the UK are prosecuted for not letting gays stay in their hotels, or sacked for wearing a crusifix.

I... kinda get wary around unevidenced assertions, so I'll leave this one alone...