In need of a more humbleness. Why condemning the Theistic position makes no sense.

[ShaMan]

What can I say Shaman, I've got your number.

Sick dude. Just sick

---

These are all signs of bitterness as I once held bitterness in my heart and acted as you act now.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-28743-po...#pid755616
You never answered.

[Celestine]

For claiming not to be bitter your character seems to betray you, in the book 'the shepherd of hermas' there is a quote that "The bearing of a grudge worketh death"

You claim not to have a grudge and that could be true but you seem very bitter if not even able to recognize it yourself. Bitterness is a lot like a grudge except it is a knife in which we plunge into our own hearts so that they may become hollow, in this way a grudge does worketh death not of the person we hold the grudge against but our own emotional death that disconnects us from ourselves. You claim you're not bitter, and that may be so, but your character presents that you are.

Is this... honestly the extent of your argument? Nothing more than an attack on the character of the arguer, rather than the content of the argumentation?

"You don't agree with me, so there must be something wrong with you!" The catch cry of the religious-minded who can't approach an argument on its own terms, and so seeks to bring down the person daring to disagree with them via ad hominems. How dishonest.

My entreating him to a philosophy on bitterness and grudges had to do this quote he said.

-and when you figure out what there is to learn from such narratives go ahead and get back to me. Until then, meh. I think it would be a wonderful discussion, I keep waiting for you to get it rolling. I can see you're far too busy for that, though - carry on.

He said 'when you figure out what there is to learn from such narratives go ahead and get back to me.'

So I thought I would pick that quote from the Shepherd of Hermas which is an early Christian document to show him a philosophy on bitterness which is something at least from what I observed to be part of his character due to his negativity. And could then be used to not only reflect on his character if he chooses to do so, but also present the moral philosophy tucked away beneath the blanket of religion that he had asked for.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-28743-p...#pid755616
You never answered.

What can I answer on that which I do not know of?

[Zidneya]

[ShaMan]

Do my beliefs (which you may only presume) make you view me as antagonistic toward a belief in god(s)?

You never answered.

What can I answer on that which I do not know of?

And yet you appear on these forums as one who does just that

So please reconsider your stance on religion.

We're done.

[Whateverist]

Most of us don't condemn theists for their religion or their beliefs. Most of us would just be happy if they kept their beliefs to themselves is all.

Why should they keep their beliefs to themselves?

Yeah, that is a little unclear. Lets say so long as they share their beliefs on a consensual basis. Their need to share can't trump our need not to be constantly harangued. Offering to share and then waiting to see if the invitation is accepted just seems civilized and respectful, don't you think?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hahaha, really got raked over the coals Zid. So brutal. I think that's happened to all of us on these boards over -something-. We're not exactly the monolithic block that some assume us to be.

Celestine, rather than criticize that particular work - I'll simply agree that it is valuable and worthwhile for the sake of argument. Notice that it was disavowed. It is apocrypha. So, again, assuming that said work -was- an example of a narrative deserving merit......I find it to be immensely amusing that it got written out (on grounds of it's christology, of all things...in all likelihood).

You were saying?

[Zidneya]

And yet you appear on these forums as one who does just that

We're done.

[Celestine]

Hahaha, really got raked over the coals Zid. So brutal. I think that's happened to all of us on these boards over -something-. We're not exactly the monolithic block that some assume us to be.

Celestine, rather than criticize that particular work - I'll simply agree that it is valuable and worthwhile for the sake of argument. Notice that it was disavowed. It is apocrypha. So, again, assuming that said work -was- an example of a narrative deserving merit......I find it to be immensely amusing that it got written out.

You were saying?

As an atheist I view most if not all the books (with possibly the exception of Paul) to be Apocyphra so what matters to me if the books didn't make it into the Bible when they were having their council to put together the Bible? I don't get how you can make the distinction between two books both of which you don't believe to be true.

[Whateverist]

But the Atheist position is not that there is no God. It's that they don't believe in God. So from this stance, you would have to either claim:

1) God doesn't exist
2) If he exists, he has not made himself known to anyone.

And if you want to remain logical, you would have to prove these.

Now believers claim to know God via faith, but how does an Atheist know 1 or 2? Via faith? no. So it makes no sense.

Therefore it makes more sense to keep one's stance and keep an open mind that a Theist might have a legitimate experience.

That would be a more humble approach and it's the better one in my honest opinion.

My bolding. I can't follow you that far but I can grant that it is for you to decide if the experience is legitimate. I will offer no rebuke given that I have no perspective from which to trump your own. Quite the contrary really.

[The Grand Nudger]

As an atheist I view most if not all the books (with possibly the exception of Paul) to be Apocyphra so what matters to me if the books didn't make it into the Bible when they were having their council to put together the Bible? I don't get how you can make the distinction between two books both of which you don't believe to be true.

I didn't make that distinction, no one consulted me (or you) - that's just religion for ya. We're assuming for the purposes of discussion that it had in it's hands something of worth (in truth I could poke holes in that text from sunup to sundown - I'm reading it in peices atm) - and what did it do? Snip snip. Why? Just wasn't supportive (enough?) of the religion's horrid dogma. I'm pretty sure you're arguing my point, not your own, with this as an example.