- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Apr 14
Originally posted by yoctobyteNo I just genuinely feel that believing in gods, in this case the Christian god, is nuts.But then you hold the bat guano crazy idea that gods exist to be true so I see how you could be confused
Why is it for you guys... anybody that has a faith (Christian in this case) do you have to make yourselves 'seem' better at somebody elses expense. There are several atheists that participate in this forum which all pretty much do the s ...[text shortened]... lse can't hold a view or belief that differs from your own. Kinda peculiar, not too impressive.
I don't need to make myself or my position 'seem' better at your expense.
My position is factually correct and supported by science and reason, it doesn't
need bolstering.
I just feel there should be a social cost to believing crazy s***.
15 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI feel the same way! 😉
No I just genuinely feel that believing in gods, in this case the Christian god, is nuts.
I don't need to make myself or my position 'seem' better at your expense.
My position is factually correct and supported by science and reason, it doesn't
need bolstering.
I just feel there should be a social cost to believing crazy s***.
15 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgegooglefudge, would you please define "crazy s***"?
No I just genuinely feel that believing in gods, in this case the Christian god, is nuts.
I don't need to make myself or my position 'seem' better at your expense.
My position is factually correct and supported by science and reason, it doesn't
need bolstering.
I just feel there should be a social cost to believing crazy s***.
15 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeThanks. Your rejection of Christ appears to be intensifying:
http://www.atheist-meme.com/resources/Observable%20universe%20-%20DON%27T%20MASTURBATE.jpg.opt724x6516o0%2C0s724x6516.jpg
"No I just genuinely feel that believing in gods, in this case the Christian god, is nuts."
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNope, I have been saying that for years.
Thanks. Your rejection of Christ appears to be intensifying:
"No I just genuinely feel that believing in gods, in this case the Christian god, is nuts."
I don't think believing in gods is any stupider now than I did a decade ago.
However a decade ago I thought it was really pretty stupid.
In the intervening time I have seen nothing to dissuade me of that view.
My views [in general] on the subject have been stable and consistent, and
will remain so until someone presents an argument and/or evidence that is
sufficient to justify changing it.
The fact that you keep making the same dumb arguments that I encountered and
refuted 20+ years ago does nothing but increase my feeling that you have nothing
but those tired old dumb arguments.
However I keep waiting to be surprised. Looking to see if anyone has anything new
and interesting.
15 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeTwo questions: a) What else would it take quantitatively or qualitatively to "dissuade" or "surprise" you?
Nope, I have been saying that for years.
I don't think believing in gods is any stupider now than I did a decade ago.
However a decade ago I thought it was really pretty stupid.
In the intervening time I have seen nothing to dissuade me of that view.
My views [in general] on the subject have been stable and consistent, and
will remain so un ...[text shortened]... ver I keep waiting to be surprised. Looking to see if anyone has anything new
and interesting.
b) Would you agree with the five atheist quotes in the new thread, "Professing themselves to be wise..."?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyA) evidence and reason sufficient to justify changing my position.
Two questions: a) What else would it take quantitatively or qualitatively to "dissuade" or "surprise" you?
b) Would you agree with the five atheist quotes in the new thread, "Professing themselves to be wise..."?
B) Not entirely no.
16 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm sorry, did you actually have an argument? I seem to have missed it.
How loosely are you defining 'something to do with'?
The rules for identifying the contents of the 'set of all sins' don't include
anything about morality.
[hidden] [The rule for creating the set simply being 'list the things a god has declared forbidden' or something along those lines.] [/hidden]
The fact that some of the members of the 'set of ...[text shortened]... as totally indifferent to the concept, and [mistakenly]
used it interchangeably with morality.
Let's have it again.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitSin has nothing to do with morality because the rules for determining what
I'm sorry, did you actually have an argument? I seem to have missed it.
Let's have it again.
is classed as a sin have nothing to do with morality.
The rule is simply "things that god/s have prohibited" [or words to that effect,
not trying to make an airtight definition here as I am relying on your own common
sense]
EDIT: and that was perfectly clear in my last post.
16 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat are the rules for determining morality?
Sin has nothing to do with morality because the rules for determining what
is classed as a sin have nothing to do with morality.
The rule is simply "things that god/s have prohibited" [or words to that effect,
not trying to make an airtight definition here as I am relying on your own common
sense]
EDIT: and that was perfectly clear in my last post.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Apr 14
Originally posted by yoctobyteThat's a question with a long and complicated answer which would require it's
What are the rules for determining morality?
own thread.
So here I'll just say that it's not really relevant to the topic at hand and I don't
want to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.