Adieu

Originally posted by DeepThought
Buddhists aren't necessarily atheist, it's just that the purpose of the religion is to escape the cycle of life, death and reincarnation, that the gods are subject to as well. So it's not so much that they are atheist, it's just that the gods aren't important. Which is quite an interesting concept in a religion.

A concept that cannot be substantiated by anything other than what a man thinks of for himself.

Whereas with Christianity the believer is a follower of the words of God.

Which is far more interesting than listening to the fallible rambling of a self-styled holy man.

Originally posted by josephw
A concept that cannot be substantiated by anything other than what a man thinks of for himself.

Whereas with Christianity the believer is a follower of the words of God.

Which is far more interesting than listening to the fallible rambling of a self-styled holy man.

That's not what happened with the Buddha. It's along the lines of divine revelation.

The problem with the second sentence is that it is not the "words of God" in any first hand sense, it is a book that you go by. What is more it can come out flawed as witness the Wicked Bible where they left the "not" out in the sixth commandment leading to "Thou shalt commit adultery."

With the third sentence you are only right if the Buddhists are wrong and the Christians are right, so see you in the next life.

Originally posted by DeepThought
From your earlier post:

They are loathe to either join in or allow thoughtful discussion on the topics which arise, instead taking every single opportunity to employ their bullhorn of sarcasm and ridicule, [b]insisting there is no basis for spirituality.

so given your post I think my question was relevant.[/b]

I would concede your point, DeepThought, if the threads didn't continually follow the same boring path.

Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.

Take, for instance, twhitehead.
A very knowledgeable fellow, with a pretty impressive palette of intellectual fodder at his disposal.
He recently changed his costume, donning his most objective voice and "innocently" asked the believers on the forum whether such and such was an important or vital aspect of salvation.
Does anyone who frequents this forum with any regularity seriously contend that his question was one of objective inquiry?
Or, as is so patently obvious to even the casual observer, was he purposely asking a question which he considered most likely to reveal a schism in the minds of believers--- with the disparity supposedly the reason Christianity ought to be dismissed?

Thus, the mind of the atheist on this forum.
His task is not to fill the obvious hole in his life.
His task is to destroy any and every foothold faith in God might find in the experience of man.

Comically, the atheist fails at every attempt.
He will win small, unimportant battles of semantics, most times against those seemingly less equipped in their style of word play or rules of engagement.
However, the argument with the atheist (no matter how well equipped the theist) is forever a lose-lose proposition.
The atheist refuses to stick with the rules, constantly changing the goal post in order to ensure his must-have outcome... all the while accusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I would concede your point, DeepThought, if the threads didn't continually follow the same boring path.

Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.

Take, for instance, twhitehead.
A very knowledgeable fellow, with a pretty impres ...[text shortened]... utcome... all the while accusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

Comically, the atheist fails at every attempt.
He will win small, unimportant battles of semantics, most times against those seemingly less equipped in their style of word play or rules of engagement.
However, the argument with the atheist (no matter how well equipped the theist) is forever a lose-lose proposition.
The atheist refuses to stick with the rules, constantly changing the goal post in order to ensure his must-have outcome... all the while accusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

Very well put!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I would concede your point, DeepThought, if the threads didn't continually follow the same boring path.

Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.

Take, for instance, twhitehead.
A very knowledgeable fellow, with a pretty impres ...[text shortened]... utcome... all the while accusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

I'll grant you one thing, you're a funny guy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I would concede your point, DeepThought, if the threads didn't continually follow the same boring path.

Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.

Take, for instance, twhitehead.
A very knowledgeable fellow, with a pretty impres ...[text shortened]... utcome... all the while accusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

See some amendments below:

---------

Thus, the mind of the atheist on this forum.
His task is not to fill the obvious lack of belief in fairy tales.
His task is to refute any and every argument in favour of faith in God, and what relevance it has to the human experience.

The Atheist refuses to stick with theists' rules, constantly bringing discussion back on topic in order to ensure a rational outcome... all the while highlighting the theists closed-mindedness.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, he loses.
But of course, the spiritual coin is a double header.

-----------

Suzianne, I wish you the best for the future.

Originally posted by CalJust
Don't worry if you can't answer it - it's a tough nut.

In several ways the story of Noah's Ark IS linked to evolution, maybe thats why you talk about it so much.

But fair enough, let's say it isn't. So pick another subject - but remember: no abuse, no Bible references, no red herrings. Just plain science and logic.

OK?

There is nothing tough about that question at all. As I have said, I have already answered that question and you can look for if you wish, but I don't intend to repeat it over and over.

You seem to forget that we are on the Spirituality Forum and I am not resticted to your so-called science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is nothing tough about that question at all. As I have said, I have already answered that question and you can look for if you wish, but I don't intend to repeat it over and over.

You seem to forget that we are on the Spirituality Forum and I am not resticted to your so-called science.

You seem to forget that we are on the Spirituality Forum and I am not resticted to your so-called science.

Agreed, but it was you who insisted on the idea that the scientists were ignoring scientific evidence.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll grant you one thing, you're a funny guy.

I get the same thing from my wife all the time.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's not what happened with the Buddha. It's along the lines of divine revelation.

The problem with the second sentence is that it is not the "words of God" in any first hand sense, it is a book that you go by. What is more it can come out flawed as witness the Wicked Bible where they left the "not" out in the sixth commandment leading to [i]"Thou ...[text shortened]... only right if the Buddhists are wrong and the Christians are right, so see you in the next life.

You make no sense. If you reject God's Christ you won't be seeing me.

That according to the Word of God.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
See some amendments below:

---------

Thus, the mind of the atheist on this forum.
His task is not to fill the obvious lack of belief in fairy tales.
His task is to refute any and every argument in favour of faith in God, and what relevance it has to the human experience.

The Atheist refuses to stick with theists' rules, constantly bringing ...[text shortened]... iritual coin is a double header.

-----------

Suzianne, I wish you the best for the future.

"His task is to refute any and every argument in favour of faith in God, and what relevance it has to the human experience."

I'm finding it difficult to believe you're referring to the atheist with that comment. Nowhere on these boards have I found the remarks made by any atheist to be even remotely resembling anything close to 'faith in God'.

Whatcha smokin' old man?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"His task is to refute any and every argument in favour of faith in God, and what relevance it has to the human experience."

I'm finding it difficult to believe you're referring to the atheist with that comment. Nowhere on these boards have I found the remarks made by any atheist to be even remotely resembling anything close to 'faith in God'.

Whatcha smokin' old man?[/b]

You misread my sentence.
I'll say the same thing again, but adjusted slightly:

"Any argument in favour of faith in God are arguments that atheists primarily aim to refute, for they themselves do not hold such beliefs."

Hope that wraps that up.

Originally posted by JS357
I wonder if Suzianne knew her Adieu post would initiate the same kind of dialogue that resulted in her departure. It's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Good focus, JS. An error of judgment in my view to underestimate this woman's intellect, intuitive sense and prescience.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The ignorant thinking in sonhouse's thread ("A new religion, IF THERE WAS A GOD:" ) made me unable to resist posting in it.

But I now see that all of the atheists in this forum who have made their beds and now lie in them are truly blind to the 'wheels within wheels' thinking that dominates this forum now. And you all consider yourselves "above the fray ...[text shortened]... at me and say "Good riddance!"

Myself, I can only say, with all sincerity, "Adieu".

Just be glad they did not nail you to a cross. 😵

I think that is what is called a best case scenario.

After all, no one likes being told they are wretched and in need of a savoir, especially these chaps on this site who have all the answers and have life and death all figured out for themselves and are all so "good".

Originally posted by whodey
Just be glad they did not nail you to a cross. 😵

I think that is what is called a best case scenario.

After all, no one likes being told they are wretched and in need of a savoir, especially these chaps on this site who have all the answers and have life and death all figured out for themselves and are all so "good".

Who are those "chaps" who have all the answers and have life and death all figured out? I have some questions for them.

By the way, we have another ~5.5 months to go, but already I think it's safe to say the "Dramaqueen-Of-The-Year-Award" goes to Suzianne. Congratulations, Suzianne!