Question For The Christians

[bdp]

It seems odd to me when anyone personally declares or a third party indicates respect for a statement that suggests that "It is okay for me to express my point of view - whether anyone gives a shit or not, but it is not okay for someone who holds a view that I am not fond of to express their view because I do not give a shit and there may be others who do not give a shit either." If this is what this site is about, I have no desire to be a participant.

 

I'm as guilty of this as anyone, and it's not a facet of myself I'm proud of. Pappy, I'd hate to see you go, especially if I'm part of the downside of this site for you. I was far too harsh on Spinoza when he first arrived here; I have made my apologies to him, and will state here my regret at being so unnecessarily brutal with him, and with others here as well (no, ray, I don't mean you). DesertBob suggested in another post here that those of us with 'rage' issues where theists are concerned might better steer clear of the Lion's Den, and I've come to the conclusion that I may be one of those - it would certainly help my blood pressure to take such a course if I can't take command of my own emotions. So I'm going to try to behave in a more civil manner from now on.

[Mister Pappy]

bdp ... my hat is off to you sir.

[Deva]

It has nothing to do with being bitter towards life, the central point of my post was that of a brutal naturalistic way of viewing the world, basically take reality, subtract all the supernatural claims people have made about it, and that's how I view life. The reason for the anger is because I get livid when people try to rationalize it as apart of some cosmic fantasy, all the pain and chaos doesn't beg me to run to a fantasy story it makes me want to embrace it for what it really is and how we can overcome this chaos through scientific knowledge not ancient hocus pocus.

 

I just read it that way - that you seemed quite bitter. I suppose I was wrong. I am glad you are not.

 

When people try to rationalize reality away, I can see that this can create problems. Life should be seen as it is. Unfortunately few can do this, since we always are judging and relying upon our concepts when looking.

 

Where I possibly differ with you is that I do not think the scientific approach can answer human problems. I am not sure that is what you are saying - I see some here on these forums that have erected "peer reviewed science" in place of God. It is crystal clear to me that they are doing this but evidently they can't see it. Again, I am not accusing you or saying you are doing this, but I wonder..

[Deva]

[Personally, most of the "tolerating" I have to do in this space is not with believers so much as with ragers, whether they are believers or not. I mostly leave it alone because I recognize it's a place these folks are at and I can't admonish them out of it; blaming and shaming are no more effective than bludgeoning.

 

+1. Yes, yes yes. At one time I raged a bit and I call that to mind. However, having moved past that point and seeing the attacks is now increasingly hard.

[Antlerman]

So, I have NO problem with people wanting to cling to something supernatural for their view regarding our existence, but don't go around telling people about it as if they give a shit, which is what spinoza does, there are places for that, not every thread you can think of to spout it in.

 

Further even, if he goes somewhere to share his ideas, there should be no out cry when he is being challenged about his views, he can defend himself.

I agree and respect this.

I cannot respect the notion that I should sit in silence ON A DISCUSSION FORUM while conversation that I totally disagree with goes on around me, and this ..... simply because the conversation was not directed at me specifically. No ... I do not respect being told to stay out of it. I do not think Spinoza needs defending, and I am not defending him. He seems to be well equipped to do that for himself. I am defending my own position / views of and in the conversation.

That's not what I meant. I was saying that I would agree with and respect that someone is annoyed by the only contribution to a discussion is to simply repeat a religious phrase or another. One would hope for discussion in an exchange of ideas. And I agree that people have the right to challenge someone who does this. That's all I meant.

 

In no way am I espousing a view that denies them the liberty of doing that, at least not in here. If it were structured as a serious debate, then to simple quote verses all the time for instance would be inappropriate. That's not the case here.

[Mister Pappy]

That's not what I meant. I was saying that I would agree with and respect that someone is annoyed by the only contribution to a discussion is to simply repeat a religious phrase or another. One would hope for discussion in an exchange of ideas. And I agree that people have the right to challenge someone who does this. That's all I meant.

Then we are on the same page Antlerman. I misunderstood your statement - my apologies. I agree with you totally.

[Mister Pappy]

I'm not here to impress, thats my second commandment.

The above is not a commandment, as you imply, but rather a statement of fact. If by this statement, you mean to say that you are here to be unimpressive as an open minded, intelligent, compassionate and thinking person, then you are a smashing success thus far. Hopefully, as time goes by, your goals will mature - being an unimpressive human being isn't much of an aspiration.

 

... a forum I go to to get AWAY from religious nuts ...

Now you have taken on dishonesty as part of your unimpressive repertuar. You, nor anyone else, goes to a thread, where a battle between exchristians and religions nuts has been going on for three months or so, to the tune of 84 pages, for the express purpose to "get AWAY from religious nuts".

 

Figure out why you needed to share this bit of untruthful information in your rebuttal, and you will have a very good chance of seeing what I am seeing in you and why I find it needful to speak up - not only for the sake of those who may think this behavior is typical of individuals leaving Christianity, but for your own sake as well.

 

I wish you only the best, and coincidentally, I do know how you feel.

 

Pappy

[Xerces]

While I do believe we as a community have left the Xtian faith because of negative facets, such as not being able to question or to discuss, to critique or disassemble the naughty parts of which firm believers will tell us that will only make sense once we commune to heaven... I do not see how me demeaning Spinoza for what he believes in to be apart of a fundamentalist mind set. Concerning my comment about getting away from "these people" I sincerely worded my post wrongfully, what I was trying to communicate is that, it is not only the lion's den, every part of the forum that he has been in it has been the same ordeal of which he chooses to word his postings on this forum. So in reality the irritation transfers from there to spill into the lions den, if he was just another believer joining the site and taking the discussion straight to the lions den, it would be a different story, but its not that story, thus while I try to understand how you're trying to tell me that he is just "learning", I also have it in the back of my mind that he is more than likely an adult, not a child finding their way through a path of youthful inquiry. Therefore because of his adulthood, what Donna and I have implied to him, whilst it may anger some, is IMO the best way to handle him because he does not display anything on the table that suggests he takes what we say seriously or that he actually comprehends our way of viewing the world. This is also evident in Xtians that come to this site that abruptly dismiss what we try to discuss with them in exchange for imparting logical fallacies into the discussion via "personal experience" or "knowledge of scripture and spiritual maturity".

 

So, backtracking a smidge, Donna, whom I respect, was being attacked on the basis of defending rationality, which means that Spinoza came into the Den, made a claim that Jews are better than normal people, and he confessed that he is a Xtian, not a philosopher, but an xtian. If he was indeed a omnitheist, he would not come to Ex-C, there is a stark reason he joined these discussion forums, and a reason for being so active. What he says almost degrades into a form of evangelism, and it states clearly in the lion den rules: "aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by aggressive resistance.". Therefore what Donna and I have said to him is within our rights as provided to us by these forums. Concerning my anger however, I do somewhat regret dropping the F bomb on Mr. Pappy, but two insults came from his post, while I was not even directing my anger toward him, 1st he said he was disappointed in me, as if I have to live up to his expectations, and the 2nd insult came when he compared me to a fundamentalist. So, while what I said was extreme, it should be apparent why I responded to him the way I did.

 

Touching on my own militant naturalistic atheism, I do confess that I am anti superstition, anti supernatural, anti religion. I am in affect militantly against the notion that there is a world superseding anything natural, if we can experience it, its natural, believing anything other than that gives way to believe in anything contradicts how we know certain things to be true. Because it would be apart of this "supernatural world". I spent too long believing in things that did not withstand barrages of questions, yet accepting them anyway, that is not a world I want to live in, I do not want to live in a world where people are suspending their rationality for imaginative non-sense. Therefore when I see Spinoza, saying the things he says, it inclines me to bite, not discuss but bite, because he does not present evidence, he presents thoughts, thoughts with no basis in reality.

 

My apologies to Mr. Pappy, he might be going through something rough that I would have no idea about, so I will leave it be. As for what I have said about spinoza I stand by what I originally said about not apologizing to him. I understand no one has asked me to yet, but I'm just throwing it out there, and I must stress that while I did tell Spinoza to take his ramblings else where, I did not tell Pappy to shut up and be quiet. Spinoza is free to say whatever he wants, even If I had moderator privileges I would not silence him, but as for my right to tell him quite frankly to "fuck off", I do not understand the backlash or the condemnation for it, if it offends, then that is your own problem, deal with it, if your method of dealing with it is retaliation, then expect likewise.

[Mister Pappy]

... what Donna and I have implied to him, whilst it may anger some, is IMO the best way to handle him because he does not display anything on the table that suggests he takes what we say seriously or that he actually comprehends our way of viewing the world.

He may not take what you say seriously, and you can expect him and others who may be silently reading what you write to take you less and less seriously as your vocabulary shrinks to that of a common thug. This is why I have spoken up Xerces - I do not want to be labeled by association with this type of behavior, so that I am also not taken seriously and viewed as a raging idiot.

 

This is also evident in Xtians that come to this site that abruptly dismiss what we try to discuss with them in exchange for imparting logical fallacies into the discussion via "personal experience" or "knowledge of scripture and spiritual maturity".

Tell me that you at least realize that the things they are trying to discuss are usually dismissed as well. The problem here Xerces is that everything you are saying makes sense to YOU. It even makes sense to me and others here, I am sure, but for those who disagree with you, it does not make sense to them. Now you have yourself in a position to be different than what you rail against - to be better than the "religious trailer trash" from which you crawled - along with me. It is your moment to shine. Will you or will you simply become what your have rejected, with a new suit?

 

If he was indeed a omnitheist, he would not come to Ex-C,

You can't possibly know this. You can assume. You can of course make your assumption make sense, but you cannot know.

 

Therefore what Donna and I have said to him is within our rights as provided to us by these forums.

Yes you are within your rights, and I am within mine to distance myself from and publicly disown certain behaviors.

 

Concerning my anger however, I do somewhat regret dropping the F bomb on Mr. Pappy ..

Don't waste too much of your time worrying about what you have said to me. I am an old fart who has been called worse by far too many girlfriends in the years gone by and am now immune to these kinds of insults. You are just fine with me Xerces. I am actually on your side, though it certainly may not appear that way to you.

 

My apologies to Mr. Pappy, he might be going through something rough that I would have no idea about, so I will leave it be.

Apology accepted without question, and btw, I am doing great - no problems here. These things come up from time to time. It is just the nature of the beast.

[bornagainathiest]

(Bump!)

 

Here's an early Xmas present for you, Ray!

 

Answer the questions put to you. Show the logic of your arguments. Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Refute my criticisms. Cite chapter and verse and explain how these support you.

You have a lot of work to do and any further requests about where my theology comes from will be met with the same answer as before. No!

No more evasions, delays or dodges, please.

 

BAA.[/color]

 

I've already done so - from Luke 16, Philippians 1, II Cor 5 & 12, the thief on the cross, etc.

 

And what's this nonsense that I don't believe in the physical resurrection of the dead at the final judgement, because I most certainly do. The discussion was re: soul sleep after death. Which is bogus, proven from Scripture and by your cowardice to list its proponents, whom you must know to be untrustworthy. Are you protecting them from 'lil ol' me?"

 

Are they whiny little children who cannot defend their own firmly held beliefs?

 

And I'm still waiting to hear from you about your, as yet non-existent, theory on the formation of that all-important Martian canyon.

 

 

Phanta and I are still waiting on your replies to our questions. When you finally condescend to put fingers to keyboard, we'll be watching what you say very c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, so that answer each and every one, e-x-a-c-t-l-y!

 

 

 

Oh and I have something for you which I plan on delivering on Jan 26th.

 

Why that date? Well, it was on Jan 26 2010 that I first put my question about those Martian canyons to you. Remember?

 

(No! Please don't go lie any more about this. I will post the evidence of your duplicity if I have to. I've already done it once and can easily do so again. It's all recorded and easy to display.)

 

Anyway, if Phanta and I haven't had proper answers from you about soul sleep after death by that date, I'll add something like the following to my profile and notify you of it via PM.

 

"I ate the Big M.A.C. and shat him out - dead!"

 

Have a crappy Xmas.

 

BAA.

[Guest I Love Dog]

(Bump!)

 

Here's an early Xmas present for you, Ray!

 

Answer the questions put to you. Show the logic of your arguments. Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Refute my criticisms. Cite chapter and verse and explain how these support you.

You have a lot of work to do and any further requests about where my theology comes from will be met with the same answer as before. No!

No more evasions, delays or dodges, please.

 

BAA.[/color]

 

I've already done so - from Luke 16, Philippians 1, II Cor 5 & 12, the thief on the cross, etc.

 

And what's this nonsense that I don't believe in the physical resurrection of the dead at the final judgement, because I most certainly do. The discussion was re: soul sleep after death. Which is bogus, proven from Scripture and by your cowardice to list its proponents, whom you must know to be untrustworthy. Are you protecting them from 'lil ol' me?"

 

Are they whiny little children who cannot defend their own firmly held beliefs?

 

And I'm still waiting to hear from you about your, as yet non-existent, theory on the formation of that all-important Martian canyon.

 

 

Phanta and I are still waiting on your replies to our questions. When you finally condescend to put fingers to keyboard, we'll be watching what you say very c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, so that answer each and every one, e-x-a-c-t-l-y!

 

 

 

Oh and I have something for you which I plan on delivering on Jan 26th.

 

Why that date? Well, it was on Jan 26 2010 that I first put my question about those Martian canyons to you. Remember?

 

(No! Please don't go lie any more about this. I will post the evidence of your duplicity if I have to. I've already done it once and can easily do so again. It's all recorded and easy to display.)

 

Anyway, if Phanta and I haven't had proper answers from you about soul sleep after death by that date, I'll add something like the following to my profile and notify you of it via PM.

 

"I ate the Big M.A.C. and shat him out - dead!"

 

Have a crappy Xmas.

 

BAA.

 

lol!

 

I suspect that Rayskidude has done a permanent disappearance! No wonder in the face of recent developments where Jewish preachers are now saying the Exodus was imaginary. Take that out of the holey babble as pure invention and the conjecture is that the whole of the babble was imaginary.

 

The writers of the babble were the Hollywood script writers of their time. They just couldn't make movies. I wonder why their god was so short on technology? Omniscient and couldn't make movies? WTF, What's the use of being omniscient if you can't make movies? If I'd been god 2500 years ago I'd have been producing promos to get myself known across the planet. Fancy picking on a bunch of illiterate donkey nomads as a PR team. Even I coulda done better than that!

[Guest Spinoza]

... I do not see how me demeaning Spinoza for what he believes in to be apart of a fundamentalist mind set.

 

.... Spinoza came into the Den, made a claim that Jews are better than normal people, and he confessed that he is a Xtian, not a philosopher, but an xtian. If he was indeed a omnitheist, he would not come to Ex-C, there is a stark reason he joined these discussion forums, and a reason for being so active. What he says almost degrades into a form of evangelism, and it states clearly in the lion den rules: "aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by aggressive resistance.".

.... when I see Spinoza, saying the things he says, it inclines me to bite, not discuss but bite, because he does not present evidence, he presents thoughts, thoughts with no basis in reality.

 

.... Spinoza is free to say whatever he wants, even If I had moderator privileges I would not silence him, but as for my right to tell him quite frankly to "fuck off", I do not understand the backlash or the condemnation for it, if it offends, then that is your own problem, deal with it, if your method of dealing with it is retaliation, then expect likewise.

 

Dear Xerces,

 

I was pointing out that the Jewish People are a Treasure, and a very small percentage of the Word's poulation... .0019 % .... as per Deut 7:6-7 (Least among peoples)

 

It is True, I am a Christian, I am also a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Quaker, a pacifist, an agnostic, an atheist .... I believe that all of these traditions have something to teach. A piece of the puzzle.

 

I am not an omnitheist and I have tried to explain that I am a Monist. You can look over all my posts. I am trying to see if I am the only one in the World who sees things as I do. I was hoping that some Ex-Christians may have discovered the same things I have.

 

I am closer to Hindu non-dualism (Everything is One) in my beliefs but I am also a student of the Nazarene because I have found he taught the same thing.

 

I am not an evangalist nor a fundamentalist, unless you call open to reading and learning from everything a fundamentalist.

 

I find that people here are more militant atheist, Hitchens-Dawkins disciples than they are ex-Christian.

[Phanta]

... I do not see how me demeaning Spinoza for what he believes in to be apart of a fundamentalist mind set.

 

.... Spinoza came into the Den, made a claim that Jews are better than normal people, and he confessed that he is a Xtian, not a philosopher, but an xtian. If he was indeed a omnitheist, he would not come to Ex-C, there is a stark reason he joined these discussion forums, and a reason for being so active. What he says almost degrades into a form of evangelism, and it states clearly in the lion den rules: "aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by aggressive resistance.".

.... when I see Spinoza, saying the things he says, it inclines me to bite, not discuss but bite, because he does not present evidence, he presents thoughts, thoughts with no basis in reality.

 

.... Spinoza is free to say whatever he wants, even If I had moderator privileges I would not silence him, but as for my right to tell him quite frankly to "fuck off", I do not understand the backlash or the condemnation for it, if it offends, then that is your own problem, deal with it, if your method of dealing with it is retaliation, then expect likewise.

 

Dear Xerces,

 

I was pointing out that the Jewish People are a Treasure, and a very small percentage of the Word's poulation... .0019 % .... as per Deut 7:6-7 (Least among peoples)

 

It is True, I am a Christian, I am also a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Quaker, a pacifist, an agnostic, an atheist .... I believe that all of these traditions have something to teach. A piece of the puzzle.

 

I am not an omnitheist and I have tried to explain that I am a Monist. You can look over all my posts. I am trying to see if I am the only one in the World who sees things as I do. I was hoping that some Ex-Christians may have discovered the same things I have.

 

I am closer to Hindu non-dualism (Everything is One) in my beliefs but I am also a student of the Nazarene because I have found he taught the same thing.

 

I am not an evangalist nor a fundamentalist, unless you call open to reading and learning from everything a fundamentalist.

 

I find that people here are more militant atheist, Hitchens-Dawkins disciples than they are ex-Christian.

 

Have you seen One the movie?

 

Regarding the rest of what you've written, I respect openness to all spiritual writings. It's what I strive for, openness and then set aside what doesn't make sense to me. I'm not always perfect at it, but it is an ideal I strive for.

 

Why do you generalize people here? Why not just focus on those who appreciate you? There are a few here, but you seem more interested in preaching your ideas then engaging in a real intellectual exchange. Are you ADD? In search of popularity? Looking for outside affirmation? What's the deal?

 

Phanta

[Deva]

....It is True, I am a Christian, I am also a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Quaker, a pacifist, an agnostic, an atheist .... I believe that all of these traditions have something to teach. A piece of the puzzle.

 

I am not an omnitheist and I have tried to explain that I am a Monist. You can look over all my posts. I am trying to see if I am the only one in the World who sees things as I do. I was hoping that some Ex-Christians may have discovered the same things I have.

 

I am closer to Hindu non-dualism (Everything is One) in my beliefs but I am also a student of the Nazarene because I have found he taught the same thing.

 

I am not an evangalist nor a fundamentalist, unless you call open to reading and learning from everything a fundamentalist.

 

I find that people here are more militant atheist, Hitchens-Dawkins disciples than they are ex-Christian.

 

Spinoza, I see that you are a follower of the Perennial Philosophy. At least, from how you describe yourself, that is what I think. Have you read Huxley's book by that title? You are correct, I believe there was a poll here a few years ago that clearly showed that there are far more atheists than theists of any type or monists. I don't know that most are of the Hitchens-Dawkins type. There are a few.

 

Yes, the perennial philosophy is not generally well received here. You can post in the Ex-C Theism section if you don't want to hear so much opposition.

[Phanta]

Spinoza, I see that you are a follower of the Perennial Philosophy. At least, from how you describe yourself, that is what I think. Have you read Huxley's book by that title? You are correct, I believe there was a poll here a few years ago that clearly showed that there are far more atheists than theists of any type or monists. I don't know that most are of the Hitchens-Dawkins type. There are a few.

 

Yes, the perennial philosophy is not generally well received here. You can post in the Ex-C Theism section if you don't want to hear so much opposition.

 

That would be great. I don't know much about monism, but enjoy watching the discussion and learning. It's clear a few folks are willing and very interested in engaging. Ex-C Theism is a more easeful place for these discussions, and I would enjoy it very much if you took Deva's suggestion.

 

In any case, I understand if you're not up for it, or if you're looking for something else.

 

Be well,

Phanta

[Guest Spinoza]

 

....... but you seem more interested in preaching your ideas then engaging in a real intellectual exchange. Are you ADD? In search of popularity? Looking for outside affirmation? What's the deal?

 

Phanta

 

Ok - I understand. Sorry for preaching - if that is how it is seen.

 

I'm in the wrong Forum. Good luck !

[Antlerman]

 

....... but you seem more interested in preaching your ideas then engaging in a real intellectual exchange. Are you ADD? In search of popularity? Looking for outside affirmation? What's the deal?

 

Phanta

 

Ok - I understand. Sorry for preaching - if that is how it is seen.

 

I'm in the wrong Forum. Good luck !

Actually, I don't see you as preaching. I enjoy the nuggets of wisdom you offer as commentary.

[Phanta]

 

....... but you seem more interested in preaching your ideas then engaging in a real intellectual exchange. Are you ADD? In search of popularity? Looking for outside affirmation? What's the deal?

 

Phanta

 

Ok - I understand. Sorry for preaching - if that is how it is seen.

 

I'm in the wrong Forum. Good luck !

Actually, I don't see you as preaching. I enjoy the nuggets of wisdom you offer as commentary.

 

I do, too. But it's weird when someone keeps hacking away at those who don't enjoy. That's the preachy bit, imo.

[bdp]

 

....... but you seem more interested in preaching your ideas then engaging in a real intellectual exchange. Are you ADD? In search of popularity? Looking for outside affirmation? What's the deal?

 

Phanta

 

Ok - I understand. Sorry for preaching - if that is how it is seen.

 

I'm in the wrong Forum. Good luck !

Actually, I don't see you as preaching. I enjoy the nuggets of wisdom you offer as commentary.

 

'wisdom' - I think that's a huge stretch.

[Kuroikaze]

It is True, I am a Christian, I am also a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Quaker, a pacifist, an agnostic, an atheist .... I believe that all of these traditions have something to teach. A piece of the puzzle.

 

IMO you cannot truly be all of these because they all teach ideas which contradict one another. I agree that people can learn things from these traditions but this does not mean one need identify with said tradition. Indeed to do so seems to make a mockery of all of those traditions at once.

 

I am not an omnitheist and I have tried to explain that I am a Monist. You can look over all my posts. I am trying to see if I am the only one in the World who sees things as I do. I was hoping that some Ex-Christians may have discovered the same things I have.

 

I am certain you are not the only monist in the world, however I do not believe that this fact makes the belief any less absurd. I am personally quite willing to believe in a god if the evidence can establish his existence, but until then believing in all religions at the same time is no more reasonable than picking just one.

 

I find that people here are more militant atheist, Hitchens-Dawkins disciples than they are ex-Christian.

 

Now we come to the meat of it, and the reason I bothered to reply to you at all. I personally find these kinds of assertions base and insulting.

 

First, you a are quite accommodating to a myriad of religious views yet when it comes to us "militant" (I hate that word) atheists you are not so accommodating.

Instead you sound like a whiny and petulant child who threatens to take his ball home if the rest of the children on the play ground won't play his way.

GROW UP. Seriously, if you cannot get along with people just because they have the gall to disagree with you then you need to stop having discussions about religion.

 

Second, while I do not consider myself a "disciple" of either Christopher Hitchens or Prof. Dawkins (why do you always mention them together? they are not the same person) I do think they are both brilliant men, they both have strong convictions and even though one of them is currently dying of cancer he has stuck strongly to his principals. However, neither of them is some atheist pope, I can and HAVE disagreed with both of them on several occasions.

 

Thirdly, I am curious what you think qualifies us as "militant?" Having strong or strident views about things? care to actually define what you mean rather than hurl insults and ad hominems?

 

You seem quite content to play fast and loose with the concept of truth when it comes to religions, like a salad bar you pick and choose ideas from each seemingly at random, the only deciding factor seeming to be (as far as I can see) what feels good to you, yet when some one comes along and asks for actual evidence for the claims you are making, you quickly abandon all your pretenses of open-mindedness and verbally attack us.

 

At least I am not a hypocrite who who pretends to be open-minded until someone disagrees with them. I will openly admit to my close-mindedness in regards to beliefs that do not meet a reasonable burden of proof.

 

You may find my post a bit vitriolic, but I have seen you spew your "militant atheist" bilge a few times since you showed up here and it pisses me off.

 

This is not an atheist website, it is an ex-christian one, I, like many here, was a fundamentalist christian for man years , so I have as much right to be here as any other, and while there are many here with various views and beliefs it should not surprise you that a great deal of us have listed towards atheism/agnosticism. Those of us who rejected Christianity because of a lack of evidence were not likely to run head long into another faith based belief system.

[Antlerman]

 

Actually, I don't see you as preaching. I enjoy the nuggets of wisdom you offer as commentary.

 

I do, too. But it's weird when someone keeps hacking away at those who don't enjoy. That's the preachy bit, imo.

Ahh, I never caught the context. In that case it would be sayings of Wisdom spoken unwisely, otherwise known as preaching.

[Guest Spinoza]

 

 

Now we come to the meat of it,.....

.... a whiny and petulant child who threatens to take his ball home if the rest of the children on the play ground won't play his way.

GROW UP. Seriously, if you cannot get along with people just because they have the gall to disagree with you then you need to stop having discussions about religion.

Christopher Hitchens or Prof. Dawkins I do think they are both brilliant men, .... atheist pope, .... ad hominems?

You seem quite content to play fast and loose .

You may find my post a bit vitriolic, but I have seen you spew your "militant atheist" bilge a few times since you showed up here and it pisses me off.

I, like many here, was a fundamentalist christian for man years ,

 

 

I do not believe that you were ever a Christian. Did you believe that Jesus was God ?

[Phanta]

 

Actually, I don't see you as preaching. I enjoy the nuggets of wisdom you offer as commentary.

 

I do, too. But it's weird when someone keeps hacking away at those who don't enjoy. That's the preachy bit, imo.

Ahh, I never caught the context. In that case it would be sayings of Wisdom spoken unwisely, otherwise known as preaching.

 

*grin* Well, I think you've been enjoying it (as have I). It isn't preaching when you're enjoying it, now, is it?

 

Social codes.

[Guest Spinoza]

God is at home, it's we who have gone out for a walk.

Meister Eckhart

 

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/meister_eckhart.html#ixzz18ULJzzTq

[Kuroikaze]

I do not believe that you were ever a Christian. Did you believe that Jesus was God ?

 

Are you kidding me? Out of my entire post this is all you take from it? Who the fuck are you to question my life experiences or doubt what I say? Do you know me or anything about me?

 

For your information I did indeed believe that for over 6 years. I majored in religious studies in college and was planing on becoming a minister or missionary.

 

Is it really so hard for your pathetically unimaginative brain to conceive that I might have changed my mind about the question of god's existence?

 

If you are coming here to make friends or understand people then you have a strange way of doing it. AGAIN, is it possible for you to stop hurling insults and actually explain what it is you find about my stance qualifies as "militant?" Do you even know?

 

You might want to accuse us "militant atheists" of being to much like fundamentalists, but in MY book this question makes YOU quite a bit like them. The only people I have ever heard come on here and question my status as an "ex" have generally been fundamentalists.

 

Holding a few extra crazy beliefs does not detract from the fact that you still carry around that same fundamentalist tendency to talk out of your ass.