Atheism

by avatar 837 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NewChapter

  Okay, N.drew. Even though you recently dropped an eff bomb on me, I will respond.

  Your comment is not about how we approach a subject, but a comment on the content of such subject. Now here is the difference. Either Jesus is knocking on doors, or he is not. They cannot both be true.

  Now if I say, Jesus did not knock on your door or anyone else's door. You would say he is knocking all the time. You will believe that I am wrong about that, and will not fully respect my position. I will believe that you are wrong, and will be unable to fully respect your position. Because he is either knocking or he is not. Based on what we think is true, we will dismiss the other view.

  The difference here, based on the tone of this board, is that I should not in any way insist that Jesus has not knocked on your door---however you can insist any old thing you want, AND demand respect for your idea. It is only my job to convince you that I respect such a notion, which I do not, but I must convince you that such an idea is AOKAY with me, which it will never be. But I need to worry about your feelings, and more importantly, avoid pushing you into an eff bomb dropping tantrum---which will be my own fault---because I didn't say you had a valid point.

  NC
• 

  corpusdei

  Qcmbr>>Knowledge must never bow the knee ever again to the superstitious and myths from the nightmares of human history.

  Very well put. The difficulty, I think, is that the line between considering religion to be the result of ignorance vs. the result of idiocy gets very easy to blur. Considering it the product of idiocy is demeaning and doesn't get anyone anywhere, but ignorance can be dispelled. Should be dispelled if we as a society are to make any notable progress.

  It is, in a way, an equally evangelical viewpoint, yes, but the point to remember about the majority of the atheist "agenda" is that it comes, not from superstition, fear, and legend, but from consistent, testable rationality. Religion hangs on the untestable.
• 

  palmtree67

  Mrs. J :

  Think of it this way: belief is not based on facts or logic, it's based on emotions. Kinda hard to fight emotions.

  I think this is the reason why believers here take ANY kind of disagreement as an attack on their person. Their beliefs are so tied in with their emotions that they are incapable of separating the two, and in some people they become almost incapable of rational thought.

  The result is they take offense when none is intended.

  The thinking becomes very childish and selfish now - "It doesn't matter if no offense was intended, it only matters how "I" perceive the disagreement. And "I" choose to perceive it as an attack on my person".

  Now for the believer, the gloves are off and they feel justified to begin name-calling and cursing.

  How do you respond to that? I don't know. The same way you respond to a 2 year old's temper tantrum, I guess.
• 

  N.drew

  AND demand respect for your idea

  Just saying I never did this. BUT. Just so you know. I was repeated told that I was calling people names.....so I did.
• 

  palmtree67

  And the proof of my last point is just proved:

  I was repeated told that I was calling people names.....so I did
• 

  NewChapter

  I was repeated told that I was calling people names.....so I did.

  Oh, I see. Then you are absolved of all responsiblity---you were pushed into your bad behavior. I believe I said you called people names after you actually called someone names---and I warranted an eff bomb for my observation---but I understand. You were stressed by what you perceived were false accusations, so I only chimed in after such accusations became true, and therefore I was not sensitive to the issues, and for that slight, I was a proper target for your anger. I stand corrected.

  F bombs away.

  NC
• 

  N.drew

  And the proof of my last point is just proved:

  Your last point? Should we celebrate? OMG did I SAY that?
• 

  N.drew

  It's a good thing I'm eating spagetti and not a sandwich. My apologies to Momma Cass.
• 

  NewChapter

  Momma Cass did not choke to death. The coroner was really irritated when people kept pressuring him for 'cause of death', so he said she choked on a ham sandwich in a moment of snark. It was reported and history was made. Her daughter always felt bad about that, because if I remember the interview correctly, she was Jewish and would not have been eating a ham sandwich---and so the legacy was distasteful to them. At least that is how I remember the interview. I think she died of heart failure---but it was something natural.

  NC
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Falling into a trap is not the same as setting one.

  The person who understands the difference eats well.

  The smartest people here are taking the bait.