pop morality

[Athene]

As I see it, you haven't actually presented a realistic alternative to popular morality. I understand that you believe you have, but to a heathen lacking in belief, such as myself, you've done little more than extol the virtues of wishful thinking.

Without belief, what can you expect anyone to do with this?

Second thing is indeed Belief, but as Christ told us, if we lack faith just ask Him for it. "Dear lord give me the faith I need to simply Ask Seek and Knock for the Holy Spirit." Then hang on to something, because change (which may or may not be pleasant) is coming.

Yes, well...Change is coming, regardless.

Never could fathom how one's to go about distinguishing such a change from the constant changes taking place as a matter of existence, without leaning heavily on confirmation bias...barring the consideration of remarkably unprecedented events, of course.

As far as I  can tell, I've yet to hear from anyone regarding the last time I A/S/Ked. Or the time before that. 
I'll be sure to drop a post if anyone ever gets back to me, though.

[Drich]

because whether most of you know it or not, you all follow the 'God delusion' outline in being an atheist, or at least some aspect of that.

And by this, you mean that Dawkins did not entirely mis-state the ideas held by many other atheists? Okay. I would imagine the sect of Christianity you consider most divergent from your own still shares some aspect of yours.

-or-
Atheism united behind the points Dawkins made.

Just like all sects of Christian have united behind Christ. (which is why all 'sects' have aspects in common, as we have a common core.) Just like you all do whether you can admit it or not.

The difference between your fantasy and what I have observed??
If "atheists held these Ideas that dawkins did not misstate' prior to his publication, then they would be able to expound on them when challenged. Rather the vast majority can not. That would tend to mean theses people are 'followers' not pioneers, sheople not shepherds.

Rather Dawkins (and people like him) voice a 'reason' for like minded sheople to unite behind. Refute the shepard's logic and the sheople fall like dominoes.

[Drich]

[quote pid='1239281' dateline='1459788769']


Biblical Christian is free from all 'moral law' So that we may Love God to the best of our ablity and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Christians would say that, they just want to go around sinning. 
"Love god" seems a bit needy don't you think?
[/quote]

ok 'agape' God. better?

[Drich]

Second thing is indeed Belief, but as Christ told us, if we lack faith just ask Him for it. "Dear lord give me the faith I need to simply Ask Seek and Knock for the Holy Spirit." Then hang on to something, because change (which may or may not be pleasant) is coming.

Yes, well...Change is coming, regardless.

Never could fathom how one's to go about distinguishing such a change from the constant changes taking place as a matter of existence, without leaning heavily on confirmation bias...barring the consideration of remarkably unprecedented events, of course.

As far as I  can tell, I've yet to hear from anyone regarding the last time I A/S/Ked. Or the time before that. 
I'll be sure to drop a post if anyone ever gets back to me, though.

If their was a first second or third time you A/S/K, then know you did not A/S/K. You A/S To Knock is to repeat the A/S part till you get what you are looking for.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

And by this, you mean that Dawkins did not entirely mis-state the ideas held by many other atheists? Okay. I would imagine the sect of Christianity you consider most divergent from your own still shares some aspect of yours.

-or-
Atheism united behind the points Dawkins made.

Just like all sects of Christian have united behind Christ. (which is why all 'sects' have aspects in common, as we have a common core.) Just like you all do whether you can admit it or not.

The difference between your fantasy and what I have observed??
If "atheists held these Ideas that dawkins did not misstate' prior to his publication, then they would be able to expound on them when challenged. Rather the vast majority can not. That would tend to mean theses people are 'followers' not pioneers, sheople not shepherds.

Rather Dawkins (and people like him) voice a 'reason' for like minded sheople to unite behind. Refute the shepard's logic and the sheople fall like dominoes.

You really DO have a listening problem, don't you? I find it telling that you used the term "fantasy", since we have told you R-E-P-E-A-T-E-D-L-Y most of us haven't even read Dawkins, or if we have only found a few of his ideas interesting, and that we don't "follow" him because we consider him just any other person with a few good ideas and a lot of bad ones. 

We tell you this over and over, and yet you persist in the fantasies you have created: a nice, neat little row of straw-man atheists. And I've never seen you "refute the shepard's [sic] logic" about anything... the only thing I've seen is a wall of straw-man half-truths that you construct and then smash to pieces before declaring victory, then ignoring when we explain to you why your personal ideas about science/atheism/history are partially or totally incorrect and/or logically inconsistent.

For someone who gets so angry when we supposedly can't grasp your Paulianity-fixation with the description of salvation (etc) in Romans, it's hilarious that you won't listen when we explain that you're just making up fake versions of us to tear down. It would be amusing to watch if I didn't know you think that way because there are apologetics mills out there, cranking out these false propaganda to mislead Christians into remaining ignorant about science and fearful of "the enemies of faith". Then I just because sad, and finally angry, to think these people actively work to increase the prejudice against atheists and other "wrong-believers", from the Christian majority.

[Drich]

You really DO have a listening problem, don't you? I find it telling that you used the term "fantasy", since we have told you R-E-P-E-A-T-E-D-L-Y most of us haven't even read Dawkins, or if we have only found a few of his ideas interesting, and that we don't "follow" him because we consider him just any other person with a few good ideas and a lot of bad ones. 

What in all that I said makes you think I insist any of you have read Dawkins? Dawkins simply provided the outline or the 'structure' that most of atheist (by word of mouth) tend to fall under.

Just like you don't have to read the bible to be a christian, yet one does indeed have to follow the teachings of Christ. How one gets those teaching will vary, but even so it does not mean one who has read the bible is any more Christian than one who has not, nor does it mean one does not have to be a follower of dawkins to spout the same type of argument/using the same frame work he himself has use/published. Why because again his frame work is ingrained in the atheism community. His arguments are the foundations (starting points) where you and people like you put their own personal spin on your own arguments. Again all of this from a 'monkey see/Monkey do' (evolution dig) behavior when a 'atheist' smashes up a christian position.

We tell you this over and over, and yet you persist in the fantasies you have created: a nice, neat little row of straw-man atheists. And I've never seen you "refute the shepard's [sic] logic" about anything... the only thing I've seen is a wall of straw-man half-truths that you construct and then smash to pieces before declaring victory, then ignoring when we explain to you why your personal ideas about science/atheism/history are partially or totally incorrect and/or logically inconsistent.

If you've never read dawkins how would you ever know?

For someone who gets so angry when we supposedly can't grasp your Paulianity-fixation with the description of salvation (etc) in Romans, it's hilarious that you won't listen when we explain that you're just making up fake versions of us to tear down. It would be amusing to watch if I didn't know you think that way because there are apologetics mills out there, cranking out these false propaganda to mislead Christians into remaining ignorant about science and fearful of "the enemies of faith". Then I just because sad, and finally angry, to think these people actively work to increase the prejudice against atheists and other "wrong-believers", from the Christian majority.

"Then I just sad too, when you make angry!"

[downbeatplumb]

Christians would say that, they just want to go around sinning. 
"Love god" seems a bit needy don't you think?

ok 'agape' God. better?
[/quote]

Not Really.



Agape ADJECTIVE 1.(of a person's mouth) wide open in surprise or wonder.

[Drich]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

"Then I just because sad, and finally angry, to think these people actively work to increase" Ignorance.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What in all that I said makes you think I insist any of you have read Dawkins? Dawkins simply provided the outline or the 'structure' that most of atheist (by word of mouth) tend to fall under.

Wat? How can he "provide an outline" when most of us don't read or listen to him?

How can he provide that outline "to the community" when this board and a few local discussion/social groups are the closest thing we have to a community?

I'm not even joking; it's honestly astounding to me that you can miss the mark by that much in your construction of strawman-atheism.

Just like you don't have to read the bible to be a christian, yet one does indeed have to follow the teachings of Christ. How one gets those teaching will vary, but even so it does not mean one who has read the bible is any more Christian than one who has not, nor does it mean one does not have to be a follower of dawkins to spout the same type of argument/using the same frame work he himself has use/published. Why because again his frame work is ingrained in the atheism community. His arguments are the foundations (starting points) where you and people like you put their own personal spin on your own arguments. Again all of this from a 'monkey see/Monkey do' (evolution dig) behavior when a 'atheist' smashes up a christian position.

What?!? Again, no "atheism community", and Dawkins is stating arguments people are already making, perhaps with his own spin/insight added to it. That doesn't mean we see him as some kind of "leader" of our "community", because we have neither.

You're so desperate to equate us with people who follow religious leaders that your shots are getting wider from the mark, not closer to the bullseye. Keep working on that listening problem of yours.

If you've never read dawkins how would you ever know?

Oh, I've read Dawkins. I read The Selfish Gene and The Greatest Show on Earth, but neither of those is about atheism. The only book of his I read about atheism was The God Delusion, and frankly I thought the book had a few major problems. I neither saw it as inspirational nor worthy of emulation in any way. From what I've seen of our forum members (the only atheist "community" I know), few of us here feel more than a "mehhh" about it or about him.

And we've told you this, over and over again. If you didn't have such a thick head and weren't so desperate to believe a falsehood instead of listening to us TELLING YOU why/where we get our ideas, you'd have long since dropped this line of pathetic nonsense.

I'm not insulting you... it really is both nonsense and pathetic to watch.

[downbeatplumb]

Well I've just finished my daily devotional prayer in the direction of Dawkins. Now to cherry pick bits of the god delusion and feel smug and superior to the "believers", one day they'll see the light, for did not Dawkins have a mild stroke for our sins