Stupid Shit Christians Say

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

I guarantee I can out troll you on my own thread.

Lol, give me a few moments to think S.....now that you have thrown the glove down.

 

NO THINKING! JUST DO! 3:) *Sy likes it rough*

[Guest end3]

And what is the result of the effort, End?

 

Something or nothing?

Doesn't matter....the point is there has to be an evaluation, a BEGINNING evaluation of -2 in order to get to 0. The initial evaluation is the fundamental evaluation.

[Guest end3]

Where are we unbelievers, End?

 

Still in the process, or arrived at the (zero) result?

I'm not the same person I was either....a long way from my fundamental perspective.

[mymistake]

 

'nuther hint:

 

You're confusing what's in the process with the end result.

 

-2 added to +2 = 0.

 

The process is active, but the result is a big, fat ZERO!

Excellent example....it takes fundamental effort to see +2 and also see -2. One can then move on to a more moderate (in most cases), 0. You notice that nature is working toward an equilibrium as well as the moderators here, and deacons, and elders, to present people with a developed response rather than the initial plus two or minus two position. This does NOT negate a fundamental response yielding + or - two.

 

Btw, the point Christ was making is it takes sacrifice for us to move to an equilibrium, but that we do it out of love.

 

Elementary stuff, yet gospel per the twisted OP....lol.

 

 

You keep using the word "fundamental" incorrectly.  Throwing the word fundamental around doesn't make unbelief "fundamental".

 

 

 

 

And what is the result of the effort, End?

 

Something or nothing?

Doesn't matter....the point is there has to be an evaluation, a BEGINNING evaluation of -2 in order to get to 0. The initial evaluation is the fundamental evaluation.

 

 

There doesn't have to be an evaluation for the infinite number of beliefs that you have never considered but do not believe anyway.  The evaluation only comes with an idea is first considered and you start not believing it before it even occurs to you.

 

Come on, you are not stupid.

[Guest end3]

Help me out MM....where am I going wrong in the use of fundamental?????

 

adjective

 

 

1.

 

serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying:

fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

 

 

2.

 

of, relating to, or affecting the foundation or basis:

a fundamental revision.

 

 

3.

 

being an original or primary source:

a fundamental idea.

 

 

4.

 

Music. (of a chord) having its root as its lowest note.

 

 

noun

 

 

5.

 

a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part:

to master the fundamentals of a trade.

 

 

6.

 

Also called fundamental note, fundamental tone. Music. a.the root of a chord.

b.the generator of a series of harmonics.

 

 

7.

 

Physics. the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave.

[TheOutsider]

I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.

 

But that doesn't explain how no one can agree on what god is, what he wants, and what we are supposed to do for him/her/it/whatever. Or why, if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...

 

Of course this is fucking stupid, hence why it's in this thread.

[Guest end3]

I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.

 

But that doesn't explain how no one can agree on what god is, what he wants, and what we are supposed to do for him/her/it/whatever. Or why, if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...

 

Of course this is fucking stupid, hence why it's in this thread.

Reasonably sure people that have never been given the concept of God don't have a concept....quite the opposite I think. Anyhow, now we are talking innate vs. learned....good luck.

[Guest end3]

 

 

I guarantee I can out troll you on my own thread.

Lol, give me a few moments to think S.....now that you have thrown the glove down.

 

 

NO THINKING! JUST DO! 3:) *Sy likes it rough*

 

Had I been there....it would already have been done. Oh, you're talking about the thread. Look at the last sentence on post 48.

[TheOutsider]

 

I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.

 

But that doesn't explain how no one can agree on what god is, what he wants, and what we are supposed to do for him/her/it/whatever. Or why, if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...

 

Of course this is fucking stupid, hence why it's in this thread.

Reasonably sure people that have never been given the concept of God don't have a concept....quite the opposite I think. Anyhow, now we are talking innate vs. learned....good luck.

 

 

Isn't that what I said? "if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...". Though to be fair, I probably should have used "they likely have no concept of god" instead, mostly because they could have been a particularly superstitious individual that created their own god to appease... But I'm off in wild speculation territory now.

 

As far as innate V learned goes, I really don't care to get into that argument, too philosophically annoying for my taste.

 

Now, how about the first line? I'm sure you didn't intend to forget it. Care to share your thoughts on that? Is that where you're coming from, or am I wrong?

 

"I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.", Though I should have wrote "non belief", instead of "negative belief". Consider that alteration valid from this point on.

 

Edit: Wait, sorry, I think you did address the first line... So you don't believe Romans1:20 is true? Okay...

[bornagainathiest]

 

And what is the result of the effort, End?

 

Something or nothing?

Doesn't matter....the point is there has to be an evaluation, a BEGINNING evaluation of -2 in order to get to 0. The initial evaluation is the fundamental evaluation.

 

 

You said you'd listen, End.  So listen!

.

.

.

It does matter.

.

.

.

Jesus isn't still nailed to the cross, is he?  That process is over, right?  You don't pray to a catholic Jesus firmly anchored to the cross, do you?  Now apply the same logic to us.

 

We unbelievers are no longer in the process of becoming unbelievers.  We've arrived at the end result, ok?  The end result is unbelief  

 

The end result is NOT the process.

 

Got that, listener?

[Guest end3]

 

 

I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.

 

But that doesn't explain how no one can agree on what god is, what he wants, and what we are supposed to do for him/her/it/whatever. Or why, if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...

 

Of course this is fucking stupid, hence why it's in this thread.

Reasonably sure people that have never been given the concept of God don't have a concept....quite the opposite I think. Anyhow, now we are talking innate vs. learned....good luck.

 

 

Isn't that what I said? "if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...". Though to be fair, I probably should have used "they likely have no concept of god" instead, mostly because they could have been a particularly superstitious individual that created their own god to appease... But I'm off in wild speculation territory now.

 

As far as innate V learned goes, I really don't care to get into that argument, too philosophically annoying for my taste.

 

Now, how about the first line? I'm sure you didn't intend to forget it. Care to share your thoughts on that? Is that where you're coming from, or am I wrong?

 

"I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.", Though I should have wrote "non belief", instead of "negative belief". Consider that alteration valid from this point on.

 

Edit: Wait, sorry, I think you did address the first line... So you don't believe Romans1:20 is true? Okay...

 

Let me clarify...what I mean to say is those that have had no introduction to the concept DO have ideas about God.

 

Ok I hear what y'all are saying a little better. We are coming from two different beginning perspectives. Like you said, each individual upbringing would determine whether there was any initial consideration of a god concept. But I'm pretty there are studies of remote people that have shown them developing a god concept.

 

And I believe I stated before that there may be fundamental non-belief due to the relativity of the starting place.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

"Elementary stuff, yet gospel per the twisted OP....lol."

 

Hur hur. Just because I hurt your wittle feewings with my rather opinionated post does not mean that you are using the word "fundamental" correctly. Everyone else here has totally said everything that needed to be said about it, yet you got your fingers in those ears. Remove them, or I'll smack em.

 

 

 

 

 

I guarantee I can out troll you on my own thread.

Lol, give me a few moments to think S.....now that you have thrown the glove down.

NO THINKING! JUST DO! 3:) *Sy likes it rough*

Had I been there....it would already have been done. Oh, you're talking about the thread. Look at the last sentence on post 48.

You are a dirty boy, End. I'd punish you, but you'd never learn. I'll just have to settle for hogtying you, gagging you, and tossing you out the door.

[Guest end3]

"Elementary stuff, yet gospel per the twisted OP....lol."

 

Hur hur. Just because I hurt your wittle feewings with my rather opinionated post does not mean that you are using the word "fundamental" correctly. Everyone else here has totally said everything that needed to be said about it, yet you got your fingers in those ears. Remove them, or I'll smack em.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guarantee I can out troll you on my own thread.

Lol, give me a few moments to think S.....now that you have thrown the glove down.

 

NO THINKING! JUST DO! 3:) *Sy likes it rough*

 

Had I been there....it would already have been done. Oh, you're talking about the thread. Look at the last sentence on post 48.

 

You are a dirty boy, End. I'd punish you, but you'd never learn. I'll just have to settle for hogtying you, gagging you, and tossing you out the door.

 

Not dirty, just divorced a long time. I thought we were playing Brad and Angelina on Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

 

I posted the definition of fundamental.....school me at your convenience or please hush as my grandmother used to say.

[mymistake]

Help me out MM....where am I going wrong in the use of fundamental?????

 

adjective

 

 

1.

 

serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying:

fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

 

 

2.

 

of, relating to, or affecting the foundation or basis:

a fundamental revision.

 

 

3.

 

being an original or primary source:

a fundamental idea.

 

 

4.

 

Music. (of a chord) having its root as its lowest note.

 

 

noun

 

 

5.

 

a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part:

to master the fundamentals of a trade.

 

 

6.

 

Also called fundamental note, fundamental tone. Music. a.the root of a chord.

b.the generator of a series of harmonics.

 

 

7.

 

Physics. the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave.

 

 

Adjective 1:

Nothing has no parts.  What doesn't exist has no foundation.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Adjective 2:

Again nothing has no foundation.  Nothing also has no basis.  So there is nothing to affect.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Adjective 3:

Nothing has no source.  It is nothing.  It is an empty set.  There is nothing there so no source.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Adjective 4:

Nothing is not music.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Noun 5:

Nothing is not a rule, not a law, nothing like a rule or a law.  Again nothing has no part of any kind, essential or otherwise.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Noun 6:

Nothing is not a note, tone or music.  Nothing is not a harmonic.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Noun 7:

Nothing is not a component of a wave.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

 

Do you get it now of are you going to need a Bible verse?

[Guest end3]

 

Help me out MM....where am I going wrong in the use of fundamental?????

 

adjective

 

 

1.

 

serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying:

fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

 

 

2.

 

of, relating to, or affecting the foundation or basis:

a fundamental revision.

 

 

3.

 

being an original or primary source:

a fundamental idea.

 

 

4.

 

Music. (of a chord) having its root as its lowest note.

 

 

noun

 

 

5.

 

a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part:

to master the fundamentals of a trade.

 

 

6.

 

Also called fundamental note, fundamental tone. Music. a.the root of a chord.

b.the generator of a series of harmonics.

 

 

7.

 

Physics. the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave.

 

 

Adjective 1:

Nothing has no parts.  What doesn't exist has no foundation.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Adjective 2:

Again nothing has no foundation.  Nothing also has no basis.  So there is nothing to affect.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Adjective 3:

Nothing has no source.  It is nothing.  It is an empty set.  There is nothing there so no source.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Adjective 4:

Nothing is not music.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Noun 5:

Nothing is not a rule, not a law, nothing like a rule or a law.  Again nothing has no part of any kind, essential or otherwise.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Noun 6:

Nothing is not a note, tone or music.  Nothing is not a harmonic.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

Noun 7:

Nothing is not a component of a wave.  Thus no belief has no fundamentals.

 

 

 

Do you get it now of are you going to need a Bible verse?

 

We are not going to agree on this one MM...next.

[mymistake]

 

We are not going to agree on this one MM...next.

 

 

Because no matter what definition you pick "no belief" has no fundamentals so you are going to stubbornly refuse to accept reality.

 

[Guest end3]

 

We are not going to agree on this one MM...next.

 

Because no matter what definition you pick "no belief" has no fundamentals so you are going to stubbornly refuse to accept reality.

 

 

So you are saying realistically that you didn't derive your non-belief status...

[mymistake]

 

 

We are not going to agree on this one MM...next.

 

Because no matter what definition you pick "no belief" has no fundamentals so you are going to stubbornly refuse to accept reality.

 

 

So you are saying realistically that you didn't derive your non-belief status...

 

 

You mean for Christianity and nothing but Christianity?  Overcoming the indoctrination of my childhood doesn't change the fact that I had no belief before I was fed that indoctrination.  By non-belief in Odin doesn't derive.  My non-belief in Ra doesn't derive.  My non-belief in Zeus doesn't derive.  My non-belief in the 50,000 gods and goddesses I have never heard of and never considered does not derive.

 

 

If you can't offer a shred of evidence for the fundamentals of not belief then your position is unfounded.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

We are not going to agree on this one MM...next.

 

Because no matter what definition you pick "no belief" has no fundamentals so you are going to stubbornly refuse to accept reality.

 

 

So you are saying realistically that you didn't derive your non-belief status...

 

 

You mean for Christianity and nothing but Christianity?  Overcoming the indoctrination of my childhood doesn't change the fact that I had no belief before I was fed that indoctrination.  By non-belief in Odin doesn't derive.  My non-belief in Ra doesn't derive.  My non-belief in Zeus doesn't derive.  My non-belief in the 50,000 gods and goddesses I have never heard of and never considered does not derive.

 

 

If you can't offer a shred of evidence for the fundamentals of not belief then your position is unfounded.

 

Hey McFly, did you read previously where I said it was relative to a starting point....yet you continue to point and shout.

 

Where we mentioned innate vs learned.

 

Where we mentioned people in remote places developing a god thing on their own.

 

Do you actually read the conversation??

[mymistake]

 

Hey McFly, did you read previously where I said it was relative to a starting point....yet you continue to point and shout.

 

Where we mentioned innate vs learned.

 

Where we mentioned people in remote places developing a god thing on their own.

 

Do you actually read the conversation??

 

 

 

I do.  You assert a bunch of things that do not make sense and have no evidence yet it is up to everyone else to provide the evidence and when they do you remain unconvinced.  Where is your evidence for your claim " . . . those that have had no introduction to the concept DO have ideas about God"?  Or are we suppose to just accept it because you said it?  Yet in the end you are still equivocating.  Initial concept of a god doesn't make unbelievers fundamentalist in the sense that Christians can be fundamentalist if they meet the right conditions.

[mymistake]

Fundamentalist Christians have a God.  Unbelievers do not.

 

Fundamentalist Christians have church.  Unbelievers do not.

 

Fundamentalist Christians have clergy.  Unbelievers do not.

 

Fundamentalist Christians have heaven.  Unbelievers do not.

 

Fundamentalist Christians have prayer.  Unbelievers do not. 

 

Fundamentalist Christians have scripture.  Unbelievers do not.

 

Fundamentalist Christians have sacraments.  Unbelievers do not. 

 

Fundamentalist Christians have traditions.  Unbelievers do not.

 

Fundamentalist Christians have prophets.  Unbelievers do not. 

 

Fundamentalist Christians have revelation.  Unbelievers do not.

 

Fundamentalist Christians have theology.  Unbelievers do not. 

 

Fundamentalist Christians have doctrine.  Unbelievers do not.

 

 

Where are the fundamentals of unbelief?

[TheOutsider]

 

 

 

I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.

 

But that doesn't explain how no one can agree on what god is, what he wants, and what we are supposed to do for him/her/it/whatever. Or why, if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...

 

Of course this is fucking stupid, hence why it's in this thread.

Reasonably sure people that have never been given the concept of God don't have a concept....quite the opposite I think. Anyhow, now we are talking innate vs. learned....good luck.

 

 

Isn't that what I said? "if someone has never been introduced to the concept of god, they have no concept of god...". Though to be fair, I probably should have used "they likely have no concept of god" instead, mostly because they could have been a particularly superstitious individual that created their own god to appease... But I'm off in wild speculation territory now.

 

As far as innate V learned goes, I really don't care to get into that argument, too philosophically annoying for my taste.

 

Now, how about the first line? I'm sure you didn't intend to forget it. Care to share your thoughts on that? Is that where you're coming from, or am I wrong?

 

"I think it's because we positively believe we have no belief about something we are all supposed to have been born with absolute, undeniable, belief in. Therefor negative belief would require active consideration in order to achieve.", Though I should have wrote "non belief", instead of "negative belief". Consider that alteration valid from this point on.

 

Edit: Wait, sorry, I think you did address the first line... So you don't believe Romans1:20 is true? Okay...

 

Let me clarify...what I mean to say is those that have had no introduction to the concept DO have ideas about God.

 

Ok I hear what y'all are saying a little better. We are coming from two different beginning perspectives. Like you said, each individual upbringing would determine whether there was any initial consideration of a god concept. But I'm pretty there are studies of remote people that have shown them developing a god concept.

 

And I believe I stated before that there may be fundamental non-belief due to the relativity of the starting place.

 

 

Well, yeah, gods are born of peoples ignorance and a desire to appease what seems to be natures wrath against them. And, no, I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. Most remote people would probably have a god concept. But someone raised in a society that was completely devoid of religious or anti-religious sentiment, I'm talking no one ever talks about gods or their existence, in any way, no one cares about the topic at all, no one worships anything, the concept is foreign, the concept of god for the individual would too be foreign... Or at least unappealing.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/04/17/missionary-deconverted-by-amazon-tribe/

 

Just to demonstrate that my hypothetical society isn't unimaginable. To my understanding, they have no native concept of god.

 

As for upbringing determining initial consideration, I was told god was real, Jesus died slowly on a roman torture and execution device for my grievous sin of being born, and if I rejected that I'd be put to an infinitely worse fate. But it was my choice, so long as I picked god. It was okay to doubt, so long as you didn't. God loves you, but he really hates everything about you so much he has to torture you for an infinite amount of time if you don't believe in him, but that's because he loves you soooooo much.

 

I don't remember having any thoughts about any sort of even remotely god like being before I was told to believe in it, and I was never 100% on board with the idea after... But I played along because I didn't want trouble, and I was a kid that was told something by my parents. I likely would have maintained my apathetic atheism if it wasn't for their gnostic theism.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

 

"Elementary stuff, yet gospel per the twisted OP....lol."Hur hur. Just because I hurt your wittle feewings with my rather opinionated post does not mean that you are using the word "fundamental" correctly. Everyone else here has totally said everything that needed to be said about it, yet you got your fingers in those ears. Remove them, or I'll smack em.

 

 

 

I guarantee I can out troll you on my own thread.

Lol, give me a few moments to think S.....now that you have thrown the glove down.

NO THINKING! JUST DO! 3:) *Sy likes it rough*

Had I been there....it would already have been done. Oh, you're talking about the thread. Look at the last sentence on post 48.

You are a dirty boy, End. I'd punish you, but you'd never learn. I'll just have to settle for hogtying you, gagging you, and tossing you out the door.

Not dirty, just divorced a long time. I thought we were playing Brad and Angelina on Mr. and Mrs. Smith.I posted the definition of fundamental.....school me at your convenience or please hush as my grandmother used to say.

LOL, End...SMDH. Everyone here already schooled you. I'm afraid you're just too simple to learn.

 

And honestly, I wouldn't touch your D with Tinpony's bunghole so yeah...sorry to disappoint ya, but it looks like you're gonna have to go fuck yourself. *shrugs*

[bornagainathiest]

Is this what passes for listening and what passes for accepting our help, End? 

 

The whole point of listening is to drop whatever preconceived notions you have about the issue in question and listen to a different p.o.v. about it - and then consider accepting it.   You aren't doing that.  

 

The whole point of asking for help is to drop whatever preconceived notions you have about the issue in question and accept the help given to you about it -  and then consider changing your p.o.v.  You aren't doing that either. 

 

So, are you willing to drop all your preconceived notions and listen and be helped?

[Guest end3]

Is this what passes for listening and what passes for accepting our help, End? 

 

The whole point of listening is to drop whatever preconceived notions you have about the issue in question and listen to a different p.o.v. about it - and then consider accepting it.   You aren't doing that.  

 

The whole point of asking for help is to drop whatever preconceived notions you have about the issue in question and accept the help given to you about it -  and then consider changing your p.o.v.  You aren't doing that either. 

 

So, are you willing to drop all your preconceived notions and listen and be helped?

And y'all considered mine? Ha.