"The atheist atheists love to hate"

Originally posted by Rank outsider
To give you an idea of googlefudge's point, would you have been as indifferent if I had posted:

'Would it be within the realm of conceivable reality that Christians believe in God because they were abused by their parents when they were young, thus creating a complex desire for an authoritarian/love/abuse relationship.'

'Would it be within the realm of conceivable reality that Christians believe in God because they were abused by their parents when they were young, thus creating a complex desire for an authoritarian/love/abuse relationship.'

An opposite reaction would seem more plausible. Being abused verbally and/or emotionally, physically and/or sexually by an (mother, father, older sibling, teacher, coach, neighbor, uncle or grandfather) authority figure would deeply scar the psyche; inculcation of submissive behavior would likely result in inordinate compensatory Macho or Feminist behavior; sexual identity confusion; and a desire to eradicate their former self. Being in Charge could at least temporarily motivate rejection of God.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Wasn't not having sex with prostitutes also part of Mosaic law?

so was having your foreskin lopped off with a flint knife, you want to go back to that, fine!

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"It's a consequence of being more skeptic than "believers."

In the same league as the Doubting Thomas Skeptic who may eventually become a "believer"?

The second time you've now brought up doubting thomas eventhough I tried to explain to you why that term is not appropriate for atheists and you appeared to understand it that time.

So let's take a moment to clarify this: do you understand and agree that atheists aren't doubtful about god?

Originally posted by Great King Rat

The second time you've now brought up doubting thomas eventhough I tried to explain to you why that term is not appropriate for atheists and you appeared to understand it that time.

So let's take a moment to clarify this: do you understand and agree that atheists aren't doubtful about god?

"a·the·ist noun

noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

"he is a committed atheist"

synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; More

nihilist

"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"

antonyms: believer" (atheist/google)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he did, he grew a huge moustache and couldn't get a chick because of it.

In terms of him losing his mind, I always pictured himself huddled up in a dark corner convincing himself that God did not exist nor did he really exist for that matter. 😛


In terms of the large moustache, that's a dead give away that you enjoy Judy Garland albums.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh?

Of course some questions are predicated on non-facts. I'll tell you why I distrust my father if you'll tell me why you beat your wife. Deal?

I beat her cause she needs to be put in her place.

Now answer the question. 😠

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ANOTHER EPIC FAIL, Whodeys point was not that Christians have not contracted syphilis, his actual point was, that is the point he actually made was that had ol Nietzsche applied Biblical principles it would have spared him contracting syphilis in the first instance, but hey we know how hard it is for you to acknowledge the Bibles superlative practical wisdom. You and ol Nietzsche deserve each other, dateless dudes if ever there were two 😵

No need to torture him further. By the time we are done with him he will start acting as if he had syphilis. 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so was having your foreskin lopped off with a flint knife, you want to go back to that, fine!

So you accept that Mosaic law imposed requirements on its followers that were deficient, non-sensical and undesirable?

Odd that your God would do that. It sounds like the kind of thing man would do.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
So you accept that Mosaic law imposed requirements on its followers that were deficient, non-sensical and undesirable?

Odd that your God would do that. It sounds like the kind of thing man would do.

Sigh, it was for a particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose and no i do not accept any of your premise. Is not odd at all when one understands its purpose.

Originally posted by whodey
No need to torture him further. By the time we are done with him he will start acting as if he had syphilis. 😛

To be instructed by Nancy Reagan, wow!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sigh, it was for a particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose and no i do not accept any of your premise. Is not odd at all when one understands its purpose.

Regardless of whether it was a for a particular epoch for a particular people and purpose, do you accept it was deficient, undesirable and nonsensical?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Regardless of whether it was a for a particular epoch for a particular people and purpose, do you accept it was deficient, undesirable and nonsensical?

Are you in your own mind? The Bible states that the Law was perfect! and I remind you it is set within a context, to take it out if that context is unreasonable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose

Your use of particular reminded me of this Tim Minchin classic on the subject of miracles as evidence for God's existence.

Warning : don't watch this if you are remotely likely to be offended at someone having a pop at religion.

(Then again, if you are, what the hell are you doing on the Spirituality Forum?)

YouTube

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you in your own mind? The Bible states that the Law was perfect! and I remind you it is set within a context, to take it out if that context is unreasonable.

I couldn't give a hoot whether the Bible states the Law is perfect. Explain to me how lopping of a child's foreskin 3000 years ago was 'desirable'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you in your own mind? The Bible states that the Law was perfect! and I remind you it is set within a context, to take it out if that context is unreasonable.

A first year medical student could have developed better rules for the identification and treatment of 'leprous like' conditions than are present in the Bible and which could have been used in Mosaic times.

I just wonder why God, with his infinite knowledge, chose to set his advice in terms which are so patently deficient and look so obviously like something human beings would have come up with.

Like the idea that physical imperfection is linked to spiritual imperfection.

As this concept is not a law, I wonder if you would subscribe to this piece of Biblical practical wisdom as well?