cuchulain

thumbs up emoji...but i cant get it to work so said it instead.

it is if you want to avoid worshipping evil...but for those who like to redefine words to fit their idea of good it probably doesnt matter. god can commit no wrong becomes an excuse for murder.

or god intends mass murder and mayhem in his name...which doesn't seem good...

i remember many various phases to this forum, having originally joined with the profile name madmerlin33 in the early 2000's. i lost the password on purpose, needing a break as sometimes happens, then lost my email for that account, so made a new one. i remember democratis AChE, dave and some few others from then, when we had an AAG forum(almost anything goes). that was done away with as too controversial...but sometimes the regular section comes close to what that section used to in levels of antagonizism.

I have heard in other threads condemnation of the atheist point of view when responding to christians, even from those who call themselves atheist. I have been told the reason is that we must respect all beliefs. But that is a paradox contained within its own statement. If we as a group at the ULC and especially on this website must respect all beliefs and philosophies, isn't it inherently understandable that the philosophy I follow should also enjoy that respect? If I follow the philosophy of atheism, stoicism, and skepticism blended(and I do, by the way), then am I not entitled to enjoy the exercise of statement of that belief? The exercise of skepticism is such that I would naturally question a person who alleges some divine being exists as described by the christian members of our community. So...I am somehow less entitled to express my beliefs and philosophical understandings because they are contrary to another members...because they are christian and I am not. I can perfectly understand not browbeating someone for believing differently, not harassing them, not deliberately aggravating them, not baiting...but being told that I cannot disagree with someone who posts in an area of the forum that allows for discussion, that seems contrary to the spirit of the forum in my opinion. I think so long as things are kept on a civilized level, as long as things don't escalate to derision, that simple disagreement and discussion of that disagreement should be welcome.

It is easy to explain why an atheist doesn't believe in your god, Dan. If you will indulge a moment. The proposition is that your god exists. The answer to that proposition is either yes or no, from the perspective of a christian who believes in your god, and for most atheists. If your god doesn't exist, then atheists have a perfectly valid reason for not believing. If your god does exist, the way he created us has led to the path that we as atheists follow, the plan for the universe, the "random chance" that cannot exist with such an all powerful being, every single piece of the puzzle, has been allotted for by a being of indefinable intellect and capability(christian understanding of god, by the way). A being capable of doing and knowing every single thing, who knows fully that if he sets a snowball loose on a hillside, it certainly will follow exactly the path that it will, because he created that path, the obstacles, the tiny changes in elevation and friction of wind resistance and every single other piece of the variable that the snowball might possibly take. He allegedly created the chemical processes, the electricity, every single element that makes up every single factor of existence, every single factor that makes everything exactly what it is, he set the course on meteorites and comets, on every single environmental impact that is possible that has occurred(remember that whole fulfilled prophecy piece you tout as evidence, to show that god knows in advance what is going to happen, by the way, negating the possibility of free will by your own words). This being, this supremacy of the universe, created us EXACTLY AS WE ARE, as doubters, as non believers...because he knew how it would turn out, that psychology(which he created as well, by the way) would work in x direction within our brains, that the wind would blow on the fifth of march and caress our cheek just so, inspiring us to stop for a second and enjoy it, causing us later to wonder about that wind and the god we had heard so much about, starting the chain reaction of thought and curiosity that eventually leads to us taking that atheistic stance... The answer is, in short. god doesn't exist, or he made us nonbelievers and we had no choice. Either he doesn't exist, or he is a monster beyond all human rationalization who tortures and murders on a regular basis to the thunderous applause of crowds of his followers, followers who cheer at the languish and suffering in hell of the non believer, who they have been told to have compassion for while at the same time have contempt for.

Something I have had trouble with as a person in general, but especially in the area of discussing my atheism, is understanding that I do not have to answer a bunch of questions. The conversation(or attempted conversion, if you will) usually goes something like..."I'm an atheist", and the response being "Why don't you believe in God?". That's right where I and many others mishandle things, I think. I have no burden to answer why I don't believe in God. When asked this question, I try to remember I don't have the burden to prove why I don't believe, but that the person who is at this point trying to convert me has the burden to show why I should believe. Often it is the case that a generally nice person will try to answer the questions put to them. A question places a lot of feelings on me, personally. Usually I feel like I owe the person asking some kind of response, it just seems like the polite thing, you know? I have been raised by people who believe in giving to each other, in respecting each other and treating each other the way we would like to be treated. For the most part, this is sound practice for me. But there are those people out there who know just what that means, and they use it to place a burden on me that doesn't exist but that I perceive nonetheless. Just a thought for the day, after dealing with some narcissistic personality types.

i am not attempting to push to pullpit. i am quoting amulet, an administrator, from the topic 'forum area movement and maintenance', post 3..."since descriptions for each forum have been updated, please be sure you are posting your topics in the correct area.". it was important enough of a statement that amulet reiterated this exact piece at the bottom of that post. maybe the case is that i see it as a truth that we should follow administration tips such as this, and you see it differently and are pushing your view on me. i will keep making what i view as polite recommendations as i see fit. call it pushy if it helps your point, but really it looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Ahhh...the definition game rears its head again, lol. I think the only way to get anywhere in a debate is for the people debating, or discussing if you prefer, to determine in advance what the definitions are of what they are discussing mutually. If that cannot be done, then discussion is not really productive, is it? In the metaphysical sense, me is the personality, the soul, the character, the thought process behind it all that is unique to me. Physically, I guess I am dna in a specific combination with specific body parts of different measurements and various chemicals tossed into the mix. So with that definition, "Me" changes if I have a beer.

so then apply that to your responses to us...nevermind. waste of time.

It's just one of my failings that I work on. It isn't a need to be right, or get the last word in. I see something posted directed towards me, and I don't want people to think I agree with that sentiment. But either way, it's a failing. And I work on it. Sometimes I succeed and others I fail.

Sometimes the advice you gave about mieshek applies to a specific moderator on this forum, whom we are not allowed to put on our ignore list. It's a failing of mine that I continue to respond to this individual, who talks in circles with the best of preachers and often points out the errors of others' logic...and then decries those others for pointing out someone else's logical failings. Hypocrisy is annoying to me, and it's one of my triggers, so I often find myself compelled to respond. He used to be on my ignore list...then he just popped off one day and now the site won't let me put him back

This works both ways. You fail to include mieshek in your evaluation of how we are behaving, and he is equally a part of this. He pushes his way on us, with no regard that HE might be wrong...and WE might be right.

i was coming to that conclusion albeit much slower. i thank you for the timely wake up call. if push comes to shove i will use the email, though i hope that doesn't happen.

I can understand that, thank you. The problem here is this subject rightfully belongs in the pulpit, where response is not allowed. I believe the person who began this subject was preaching, and that should go there. BUT...when I recommended that to someone in the past, they threw fits telling me I was trying to silence them. This section is able to be replied to for a reason. Using logic, I would hazard that the reason is for discussion of beliefs in matters of philosophy and theory. If a person posts a topic here, there are several factors in play. First, they have an account here and agreed to terms of service. Those terms say(paraphrasing here) that a person shouldn't attack other people directly, and shouldn't run down their beliefs or ideas. I have crossed that line on occasion, but I at least attempt not to do so. Second, if they post here, they should understand the make up of the board is various. There are many people here from many different beliefs and ideas and philosophies. In other words, they aught to try to moderate what they say about those other beliefs, etc... Third, this particular area is a discussion area and able to be replied to. So, some of those other beliefs that disagree with the posters, they are going to see this topic and they MIGHT have input that seems less than flattering because it doesn't agree with what they are saying. I don't know why people think disagreement is attack, sometimes it's just polite discussion and attempts to sway the person to their way of thinking and any other number of things, but most people think if I disagree with their ideology I am attacking them. I asked this particular person to point out my attack...AND THEY FAIL TO DO SO. That's because it doesn't exist. So what we have is this. The person who posted this topic, mieshek(for some reason that name just doesn't stick in my mind and I have to look back, maybe it's just because they are newer here or maybe its strangely phrased or something, I apologize), is a preacher. He thinks he has found THE truth, the only truth...and all others are simply wrong. That's his right. He is free to speak however he wants, within those terms of service. I even stated early on that I don't think he should apologize for stating things that he believes to be true, so long as he isn't crossing that line and attacking someone else. But he does. He does the passive aggressive thing and says that he doesn't, or puts a disclaimer on his statements saying if we don't like what he says we shouldn't read it(now here's a conundrum for you, how do we know what he says UNLESS WE READ IT!!!) But I digress...this is all good reason for why he should post in the appropriate area, namely the Pulpit...and he knows about the pulpit. He has responded in other areas of the forum where I tried to point another member in that direction, and he saw that post. Yet he chooses to post here. That's his prerogative. It's also my prerogative to respond, whether he likes what I have to say or not. And again...I ask. Since there seems to be some indication that I am attacking miechek...please point out where!!!!!! If not...quit saying so.

Personally, I have a hard time trusting just about anyone anymore. Just basic life and experience with other humans. I used to be exceptionally naïve in that I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt. I took teachers' words for it when they told me as a young child we were all special and unique and valuable. Then I took teachers words for it when I grew up a little bit, about middle school, when they insisted we were all the same and nobody was any different than anyone else. Then I had a good teacher in college who taught me how to think for myself Sometimes that is a slow process, but I get there eventually.

On the side note. I think it boils down to people's experiences. I have encountered and dealt with many scientific and spiritual people over the years. I am speaking in generalizations, which I know is a bad thing, so bare that in mind please. Scientific people usually in my experience come off a lot calmer, a lot more assured. They look into matters and try to figure them out. There is a plethora of scientific data and information which has been used over the centuries reliably. Occasionally a scientist will get caught fudging his or her research, and usually when that happens they fall on their sword, so to speak, they admit they were wrong and are sorry about it. They take the consequences of their actions. But that doesn't happen so often in my experience(i may be wrong, I just haven't met ANY personally who have fudged their numbers to make something work). Spiritual people come off in a variety of ways, so it isn't as predictable. They can be calm and soothing, or they can be yellers. They can be any number of things just like anyone else really, but in dealing with matters of spirit, people tend to get a little more worked up. They have more invested I think in being right, as they align with religions and spiritual practices based on who they are, and so if a person can attack the information provided by their spirituality, they are in essence attacking that person as well. They might look into matters to try to figure them out, like the scientist, but in my experience they like to cherry pick their facts a LOT more, going with the studies that affirm what they already believe and heckling the studies that show otherwise. There is a history of spiritual people being wrong AND STILL TRYING TO ASSERT THAT THEY ARE RIGHT. Scientists typically will admit that they are wrong when it is shown, be it by their own study or someone else's. It's kind of a scientific community delight actually to prove the other guy wrong. A spiritual person getting donations will certainly fight to prove that they were not engaged in any illicit activities, even though it eventually comes out that they were, and they will not give back those donations. Scientists with their funding are a different matter altogether. In essence, it boils down to peoples experience with the two types of people. So most people will believe the scientist, and not the spiritual person, because that's been their experience.

This is where you assume we don't have the credentials to give you an educated answer, or in other words...we just aren't smart enough to discuss it with you. Again, apologies on the multiple posts, don't know how to multiquote, and I think too many posts is annoying at least in so far as others dismissing my ideas because I am "not educated enough"...so I will just leave it here.

This is where you say we believe in "Nothing" that is, we have no hopes, no dreams, no fairy tales...and our beliefs are looney toons. That's something I found insulting. Again, I don't know how to multiquote, so I apologize for the splitting of all these responses.

This is ONE example...though not the one I was thinking of, where you were saying other people do not see(or are blind) and that YOUR eyes are open, presupposing of course that others' with different beliefs or ideas are closed, or blind.

This is where you say it is ignorance...see right there? That was you second or third post in this topic, and it wasn't that hard to find. I am not technologically inclined enough to multiquote where you also said where we are blind or cannot see or whatever, so I may...MAY...feel up to looking that up as well and highlighting that lie as well.

Better proof that science works...you are using a computer created through scientific principles utilizing scientific principles in order to transmit information.

Point to where I attacked you. You can state from the beginning that you are not attacking...however, when you say that Atheists are blind, and ignorant, and you have the truth while we do not...THAT IS AN ATTACK. It doesn't matter if you say it's not. I could tell someone I am not attacking them and then slap them, but it wouldn't be a truthful statement now would it? And...if you reread my response to where you ask for proof, I stated quite clearly that there are MYRIAD museums, dinosaur bones, and other archaeological pieces that coincide with scientific discoveries(that being as close to belief as I get).

i have been trying to place someone on ignore, but it pops up a bubble that says 'you are not allowed to ignore that member'. any help?

if you say your wife is pretty, but mine is ugly...that would be a closer analogy i think. and its an attack personally, just as this subject started with the preacher(who should preach in the section for it anyway) stating we were the blind and ignorant. we responded. i think turnabout is fair...or maybe we should just hit that report post at the onset instead of having a civilized discussion on why we think hes wrong to say something so sweeping about everyone elses beliefs. but a good test for me is when he can irritate Rabbi...