War in Heaven (No Atheists)
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
So lets summarize:
** Skill wants us to think he's referenced some invisible posts.
** It turns out that there is nothing to support his claim that atheists proselytize more than theists.
** He has no "skill" at engaging in discussion or debate, particularly when faced with the logic and reason of the "atheists" that ask him pointed questions.
** This leaves him with no other recourse but to insult and resort to ad hominem remarks -as usual.
I don't think I've ever read a single thread about religion in two message boards that he's been involved in that he didn't resort to the same juvenile tactics of name-calling and "get a brain" type remarks. What usually happens is that "skill" (or lack thereof) starts in on his insults and "get a brain" (I'm waiting for the predictable "moron" and "idiot") and continues until a moderator finally has to warn him.
Why does "skill" use this as a debate tactic? We can only hypothesize. But I must say, that whenever I post in a thread started by or frequented by cool "skill," I look at it as an experiment in human behavior. I learn something new in each thread about what drives the a-typical believer (he's anything but typical). Norval and crazymikey were more fun -search their usernames for threads long expired if you don't know who they are- but far less predictable.
I think his final insulting/ad hom behavior in a thread is an escape mechanism: it allows him to escape having to actually answer the questions posed to him in a thread if he can just get a moderator to warn him away.
** Skill wants us to think he's referenced some invisible posts.
** It turns out that there is nothing to support his claim that atheists proselytize more than theists.
** He has no "skill" at engaging in discussion or debate, particularly when faced with the logic and reason of the "atheists" that ask him pointed questions.
** This leaves him with no other recourse but to insult and resort to ad hominem remarks -as usual.
I don't think I've ever read a single thread about religion in two message boards that he's been involved in that he didn't resort to the same juvenile tactics of name-calling and "get a brain" type remarks. What usually happens is that "skill" (or lack thereof) starts in on his insults and "get a brain" (I'm waiting for the predictable "moron" and "idiot") and continues until a moderator finally has to warn him.
Why does "skill" use this as a debate tactic? We can only hypothesize. But I must say, that whenever I post in a thread started by or frequented by cool "skill," I look at it as an experiment in human behavior. I learn something new in each thread about what drives the a-typical believer (he's anything but typical). Norval and crazymikey were more fun -search their usernames for threads long expired if you don't know who they are- but far less predictable.
I think his final insulting/ad hom behavior in a thread is an escape mechanism: it allows him to escape having to actually answer the questions posed to him in a thread if he can just get a moderator to warn him away.
I'm sick of this simplistic definition of religion, SkinWalker. Ok, Mr. Anthropology, how about a real, objective, unbiased definition of religion:SkinWalker said:
Religion- A social process that helps to order society and provide its members with meaning, unity, peace of mind, and the degree of control over events that they believe is possible.
That's the definition coming from my Anthropology textbook. I think it's pretty good, even though it's not how I would define religion. It's certainly better than the way you have been defining it, and it bothers me because I take History and Anthropology very seriously. Of course, I am not saying that Atheism is a religion, but I am getting annoyed at your clearly hostile definition. Totally unworthy of someone who is supposed to be study culture as it is, making no value judgements as to it's components.
oxypunk101
Registered Member
I would like to know where cool skill is going with the fanatical idea. He keeps saying atheist are fanatical, but he leads it no where. If calling atheist fanatical is meant to be negative that is very ironic since there are many fanatical religious people. Consider though in society believing in God is for more acceptable than not believing in God. This is the only place I know of where atheist feel comfortable to discuss there opinions where anyone can see them(it’s a shame since it’s over the internet rather than face to face).
Also, I love the fact anything that is written is overly analyzed and ripped to shreds. By discovering what flaws exist in an argument it can only help you to strengthen your argument, or make you realize you are wrong. Cool Skill, please do not over generalize about all people in your comments. I am atheist, but have no problem with people who believe in God so long as they can discuss it in a good manner (so should atheist discuss their views in a good manner). If a belief in God makes them happy and they are not shoving religion down others throats I am happy for them. Meh, someone rip this reply to pieces so I can re-word what I mean to say better. :bugeye:
Also, I love the fact anything that is written is overly analyzed and ripped to shreds. By discovering what flaws exist in an argument it can only help you to strengthen your argument, or make you realize you are wrong. Cool Skill, please do not over generalize about all people in your comments. I am atheist, but have no problem with people who believe in God so long as they can discuss it in a good manner (so should atheist discuss their views in a good manner). If a belief in God makes them happy and they are not shoving religion down others throats I am happy for them. Meh, someone rip this reply to pieces so I can re-word what I mean to say better. :bugeye:
Jaster Mereel said:
The problem with this definition is it would ostensibly include the cubscouts, therefore it isn't real *or* objective. My definition isn't really "mine." It comes from philosopher Daniel C. Dennett and is, to date, the most useful and specific definition I've seen. Nearly every anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. textbook offers one that's different if just slightly.
Jaster Mereel said:
As do I, but I'm interested in what you find lacking about the definition of religion I've offered.
Jaster Mereel said:
Why should I be expected to make no judgements of a culture? There are certainly actions and activities that are characteristic of cultures that are deserving of an opinion, wouldn't you agree? Female Genital Mutilation, for instance... doesn't this practice of certain Muslim cultures of mutilating the genitalia of pre-adolescent girls strike you as wrong? Regardless of any ethnocentric bias or ettic versus emic perspective, there's something humanly wrong with adults holding down a child and using a rusty razor blade to remove her clitorus.
Moreover, why should I be expected to have strong opinions about the politics of my fellow citizens but not their religions? Religion has positive aspects within a given society, but is it not also true that their religious belief can potentially have a deleterious effect on the society for which I'm a member?
This "Lucifer/Satan" character sounds more like the victim in this than anything else, really. It just sounds like this "Jesus/God" fella was acting like a dickhead, and was totally unappreciative towards Lucifer. Lucifer, though a bit hotheaded in his actions, sounds totally justified. I mean, think of it like this: you're the firstborn of a family, and they love you are care about you, but suddenly, you are thrown completely to the wayside by this new thing, who they think is really "all-that", but is actually nothing special. In fact, it's weaker, stupider, and less fit to survive than you. That's what if must've been like for this Luci guy.cool skill said:
Of course, it's all fiction, but it's decently entertaining fiction nonetheless.
staples disconnected
Registered Senior Member
What about all the poor pleebs in heaven 
There is very little indication of the detail of what you want in the Bible itself. There are fleeting references in a many different locations including Genesis, Job, Isaiah, Jude, Revelation etc.
You could probably find all the references with a good Concordance.
Much of what is in Jude is taken fro the apocryphal (hidden) Book of Enoch. Copies of translations of this can be obtained. It should be borne in mind that this was regarded as a useful book by Jews (hence its use in Jude) but it was not (and still is not) regarded as divinely inspired by either Jews or Christians so read with some caution.
If you are interested in a good novel (fiction but fairly soundly biblically based) 'The Fall of Lucifer' by Wendy Alec ISBN: 1591858143 is quite interesting (but always remembering it is a novel and whilst it is not heretical like the Da Vinci Code, it is not scripture either).
Regarding whether the fall was before or after creation of the material universe , this is not clear from scripture but as Satan is given as the temptor of Eve, it was clearly long before Job. There is a belief that Satan still had access to the spiritual realm ('heaven' - as in Job) until after Christ when he was then trapped on Earth, but it has always to be remembered that if God is outside of space and time, communication between Satan and God may not indicate anything about the physical location of Satan.
The issue of God creating Satan, who ultimately became evil, has to be understood in the context of love and free-will. If you make any creature, you cannot make it love you. This is to contradict the meaning of words, as 'love' has to be volunteered freely. Love also has to be worked at, as anyone who has had relationships which have failed (everyone?) will know. If you do not keep the love hot, it naturally becomes cold.
In respect of evil, just as 'cold' does not exist of its own but is only an absence of heat (none at all at minus 273 C.) and just as 'darkness' does not exist of itself but is a lack of light (again complete darkness being no light at all) so evil does not exist of itself but is an absence of good. So God did not create good and evil but only good with a free will for angels (and men) to choose the good or not to varying degrees. Sadly evil tends to promote more evil. If you think of telling a lie, you often have to tell more to prop up the first and so on. You can get into an awful tangle from what appears one simple small and apparently harmless lie.
How easy is it to be really good? Or do we fail all the time and become (at least a little) bad or evil i.e. not good. If there are spirit beings (angels), could it not have logically been too difficult for some of them to maintain their goodness too?
You could probably find all the references with a good Concordance.
Much of what is in Jude is taken fro the apocryphal (hidden) Book of Enoch. Copies of translations of this can be obtained. It should be borne in mind that this was regarded as a useful book by Jews (hence its use in Jude) but it was not (and still is not) regarded as divinely inspired by either Jews or Christians so read with some caution.
If you are interested in a good novel (fiction but fairly soundly biblically based) 'The Fall of Lucifer' by Wendy Alec ISBN: 1591858143 is quite interesting (but always remembering it is a novel and whilst it is not heretical like the Da Vinci Code, it is not scripture either).
Regarding whether the fall was before or after creation of the material universe , this is not clear from scripture but as Satan is given as the temptor of Eve, it was clearly long before Job. There is a belief that Satan still had access to the spiritual realm ('heaven' - as in Job) until after Christ when he was then trapped on Earth, but it has always to be remembered that if God is outside of space and time, communication between Satan and God may not indicate anything about the physical location of Satan.
The issue of God creating Satan, who ultimately became evil, has to be understood in the context of love and free-will. If you make any creature, you cannot make it love you. This is to contradict the meaning of words, as 'love' has to be volunteered freely. Love also has to be worked at, as anyone who has had relationships which have failed (everyone?) will know. If you do not keep the love hot, it naturally becomes cold.
In respect of evil, just as 'cold' does not exist of its own but is only an absence of heat (none at all at minus 273 C.) and just as 'darkness' does not exist of itself but is a lack of light (again complete darkness being no light at all) so evil does not exist of itself but is an absence of good. So God did not create good and evil but only good with a free will for angels (and men) to choose the good or not to varying degrees. Sadly evil tends to promote more evil. If you think of telling a lie, you often have to tell more to prop up the first and so on. You can get into an awful tangle from what appears one simple small and apparently harmless lie.
How easy is it to be really good? Or do we fail all the time and become (at least a little) bad or evil i.e. not good. If there are spirit beings (angels), could it not have logically been too difficult for some of them to maintain their goodness too?
SkinWalker said:
Look at the lawsuits filed by atheists against any religious decorations one or around holidays. In a predominately (like 80%) christian town we had no christmas decorations in our school for ten years becuase of one Atheist family. The other faiths did not have a problem with it at all, so why did that one family? What right of theirs were we violating.?
Well, you are probably right in that. Since, by the time of Adam and Eve Satan was evil.cool skill said:
Also, in Satan is under God, and may have to do his duty, in the story of Job, Satan tries to undermine Jobs faith by giving him deceases and causing accidents, Satan didn't think humans could have such faith that Job had and I guess that it was a lesson for Satan to see that allthough all the accidents and deceases he was still in obediance of God (even though Job stumbled a bit in the end).
TW Scott said:
The separation of church and state. You know, your constitution? Seems if the transgression is Christian, the constitution takes a back seat in far too many people's minds. It doesn't matter if 80% of the town believe in god, or the FSM, the constitution says no, and that's final.
If it's only the atheists that care about the constitution, shame on you.
phlogistician said:
Amendment I said:
The first amendment actually just prohibits Congress from making laws for or against religions. It also stops the government form establishing a state religion. Not to mention safeguarding practicing religion, free speech, fredom of press, and peaceably assemble. No mention in there that we can't celebrate our holidays or decorate or schools, courthouses, lawns or governement buildings. So the transgression is atheist as it always is, or is suing people over trees and light how you practice your religon?
I won't comment directly to this thread since it has a closed mind (NO ATHIESTS)
While I am not an athiest, I don't think it is wise to shut anyone out of anything over any mystical (often fiat) beliefs.
While I am not an athiest, I don't think it is wise to shut anyone out of anything over any mystical (often fiat) beliefs.
C
charles cure
Guest
illuminatingtherapy said:
stop being a pussy and debate. that's all anyone is asking. just because you can't make an intelligent or evidenced argument for something you believe doesn't mean people are beating up on you, it just means you don't have any good reasons for believing what you believe.
TW Scott said:
It does more than that. It prevents congress from establishing a national religion and from preferring one religion over other religious or non-religious philosophies.
In the case of that public school (i.e. government) example, the action of preferring christianity was in violation of law.
I don't know why you would complain about this. The constitution guarantess you freedom to exercise your religion outside of government. If you want your children to have a Christianity preference then send them to a private shool. The first ammendment allows such things.
My wifes knitting circle.Jaster Mereel said: