A message for Atheists

look at all of the threads you have started medicine*woman. now tell me you are not obsessed with religion. its obvious to anybody that religion is a huge part of your life, and trying to dissprove it controls your very essence.

as i said before i think you are bitter at your old religion, 9 pages worth of threads trying to dissprove christianity. theres no need for me to debate about it, those threads say it all.



http://sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=1410781


peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
religion plays a big part in your life and you dont ave faith in god.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Religion doesn't play a "part" in my life. Religion is something I study. That's like saying cancer doesn't play a part in my life, but I study about cancer. I don't need to have cancer to study about it.

so why cant religion play a big part in others life when they do have faith in god?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Other people can believe what they want to believe. I don't care if they have faith or not. I've already said a million times, atheism is not something that can be forced on another. Atheism takes years to understand.

what right have you got to try and stop somebody having faith?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: No one can stop anyone else from having faith. That is a personal decision.

I have a feeling that both you and Wisdom Seeker don't have a good command of the English language. Neither of you seem to understand the posts on this forum.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: "Sickening" is not the correct term. I am "sickened" by children being abused in this world. I am "sickened" by wars and the ones it affects. Where is your god then?

It is kinda funny, that in the path towards your inner-realization, your atheist inner-knowledge can be converted into something wonderful you never expected...
Click to expand...


**************
M*W: Your posts are offensive. Most of us are not interested in your idea of god. We have inner-knowledge, and it is not what you believe you have. What you believe in is not everyone's cup of tea.

In fact, it is my opinion that you don't have enough inner knowledge to even post here. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. You might want to check out the Comparative Religion Forum. Maybe you'll fit in there.[/QUOTE]

wow that was some post ther M*W.:bugeye:

I may have come up with proof that at it's core Atheism is impossible but since it was deleted (from Comparitive Religion)i wont tell anyone here.

I know what your saying about the othe 'religion' forum as i was set upon by a pack of wild posters. I think it was because i pointed out that a mod is just a lawyer in a polyester suit but i cannot prove it. Nah jk, but they trashed two good threads oif mine, for no reason/
 
Last edited:
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: You only show your ignorance. Christianity did not exist until the Romans took it over.
Click to expand...


If "Christianity did not exist until the Romans took it over," how were the Romans able to take over a non-existing entity (Christianity)?
 
Last edited:
They adopted one interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, and then proceeded to hunt down all the other sects and destroy them. This led to the uniformity about the teachings of Jesus known as Christianity.
 
Nutter said:
If "Christianity did not exist until the Romans took it over," how were the Romans able to take over a non-existing entity (Christianity)?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: The early church fathers were Romans. Christianity wasn't created until the end of the 3rd century, long after Constantine had his say. In fact, Jesus wasn't even considered divine until that point in time. Then the trinity was made up, as was the crucifixion and resurrection. In fact, there is a school of thought today that the Romans invented the entirety of christianity to control the masses and books are being published on this theory. See:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, 2005.

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity -- An Investigative Report, by Francesco Carotta, 1999.

Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original Form of the Testimonium Flavianum, by Albert A. Bell, 1976.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: The early church fathers were Romans. Christianity wasn't created until the end of the 3rd century, long after Constantine had his say.
Click to expand...


M*W:The spurious designation of "church father" is very close to meaningless. Typically it is an appeal to a manufactured "authority" to support any of a number of heresies or questionable views. Just pick a "church father" who agrees, and quote him. This is a common ploy used by Catholics and some Protestant sects.

Christianity's beginnings is recorded in the book of Acts. The Roman "church," as you indicated, put their spin on things hundreds of years later.

God bless you.
 
Why it is sickening to you that people believe in God? it is not your problem, it is theirs, from your perspective.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think it's everyones problem - as my post tried to highlight. My neighbour can believe in any old crap he wants, that's fine - but when he tries to get me to believe in the crap that he does, tries all kinds of methods to get my kids to believe in the crap that he does, tries to force idiocy into science class and eventually lands a plane into a building because of the crap he believes it becomes a problem for everyone.
 
John99 said:
**************
wow that was some post ther M*W.:bugeye:

I may have come up with proof that at it's core Atheism is impossible but since it was deleted (from Comparitive Religion)i wont tell anyone here.
Click to expand...

I know what your saying about the othe 'religion' forum as i was set upon by a pack of wild posters. I think it was because i pointed out that a mod is just a lawyer in a polyester suit but i cannot prove it. Nah jk, but they trashed two good threads oif mine, for no reason/
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: John, is it late or is it just me? I don't understand your post. Please explain.
Click to expand...
 
Hi M*W:)

I cannot expand on the post at this time. Needless to say i have devised methods for researching the veracity of this belief system, i sent in PM to admin. but that was miniscule part of it.

In reality it is not really that important, one thing worth mentioning is that what we believe fully alive is very differant from what we believe when the end of the road is in view.

The thinking behind this is voluntary\subconscious supression/...possibly.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: The early church fathers were Romans. Christianity wasn't created until the end of the 3rd century, long after Constantine had his say. In fact, Jesus wasn't even considered divine until that point in time. Then the trinity was made up, as was the crucifixion and resurrection. In fact, there is a school of thought today that the Romans invented the entirety of christianity to control the masses and books are being published on this theory. See:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, 2005.

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity -- An Investigative Report, by Francesco Carotta, 1999.

Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original Form of the Testimonium Flavianum, by Albert A. Bell, 1976.
Click to expand...

I don´t find any of that feasible, it is a known fact that by the II Century AC, Mithraism was the biggest religion movement across the Roman empire, Christianity was the second and growing. But the Roman Empire was so wide, that pagans, egyptians, greeks, phylosophers and astronomers had an important role in society as well. When the Romans created this Catholic Religion, and made it the official religion, they could not have done it with the sympathy of all the beliefs across the empire.
So they got pieces of every belief and incorporated them in this new movement. The adoption of imagery or icons or festivals was obvious (such as the adoption by Christendom of winter solstice or Saturnalia festivals (Mithraism) as Christmas) ammong many other apparent atrological similarities.

The thing is, why would the Romans made Jesus up, around the 3º Century AC, if Mithraism was the most popular religion ammong Romans? They already had Mythra, why would they make Jesus up?

"The Roman army first encountered the cult of Mithras in Persia (modern Iran) during the reign of the emperor Nero although its origins in India have been traced back to 1400 BC. One of the many mystery cults that the Romans introduced from the east, Mithraism first appealed to slaves and freedmen but with Mithras's title Invictus, the cult's emphasis on truth, honour and courage, and its demand for discipline soon led to Mithras becoming a god of soldiers and traders. "
http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/mithras/text.htm

So Romans were warlords by excellence, and believed in Mithras, god of soldiers and trader.

But why would they make Jesus up? Jesus spread the word of love and peace, the Romans weren´t exactly known for those virtues were they?
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Religion doesn't play a "part" in my life. Religion is something I study. That's like saying cancer doesn't play a part in my life, but I study about cancer. I don't need to have cancer to study about it.
Click to expand...

Then why don´t you care about Buddhism, Gnosis, Tantra, Hinduism, Egyptian and Greek beliefs, Islam, etc. etc.

It seems to me you are obsessed with the Romans, not Religion my friend.
 
Even a biologist has a specialty within biology; the geologist a specialty within geology. Just as you agreed that pointing out that a theist who "thinks he knows what he's talking about" is an ad hominem, it seems clear that your post above is, just as equally, ad hominem since you are attempting to "lower the importance of what has been said" by saying she's "obsessed with Romans, not religion."

Hypocrisy is a characteristic of theistic delusion, however. (that *was* an ad hominem remark, just to be clear).
 
SkinWalker said:
Even a biologist has a specialty within biology; the geologist a specialty within geology. Just as you agreed that pointing out that a theist who "thinks he knows what he's talking about" is an ad hominem, it seems clear that your post above is, just as equally, ad hominem since you are attempting to "lower the importance of what has been said" by saying she's "obsessed with Romans, not religion."

Hypocrisy is a characteristic of theistic delusion, however. (that *was* an ad hominem remark, just to be clear).
Click to expand...

Hehe, you really know your way around an argument, but yes, she is saying she studies religion, and at the same time, she "doesn´t care about Buddha". Buddhism being one of the most accurate and perfected religions that currently exist.

It is like an astronomer that says he studies the constellations, but have only studied the constellation of Virgo, but doesn´t care about the other constelations, they are not as important as Virgo...
To say that astronomer is obsessed with Virgo, and not the constellations it is the same as saying MW is obsessed with Roman Christianity.

SkinWalker said:
Hypocrisy is a characteristic of theistic delusion, however. (that *was* an ad hominem remark, just to be clear).
Click to expand...

Hipocrisy is a characteristic of some people... and not all theists. And that is not an "ad hominem", an "ad hominem" is towards a person. What you are doing is called stereotyping.
 
One could say that its like an astronomer that studies quasars. Maybe he's not as up to speed on the latest data and research on extra-solar planets.

By the way, astronomers don't study "constellations."
 
Could you please cite the post # where M*W said she only studied "Roman Christianity?" I've read many of her posts that commented on other religious cults as well, but I don't recall her stating that she studied exclusively the RCC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top