Atheism takes courage

[K9Buck]

Tuatara

Try this for your hurt k*nt.

 

[Czernobog]

See, this is why having a rational discussion with theists is impossible:

What do you call someone who says there is no "God"?

Either an atheist, or an agnostic. But to say "There is no God" is not, in itself, a dogmatic statement. Are you familiar with the Null Hypothesis? Probably not, which is why you cannot understand that a statement can be one devoid of either intent, or belief. Reason doesn't require belief. Scientists don't hold hands on Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart what goes up must come down! AMEN!" We know that gravity exists because the objective evidence says it does.

What I believe in is evidence. I will believe anything, regardless of how fantastic, or improbable, just so long as there is evidence to support it. However, the more outrageous a thing is, the more firm I require the evidence to be.

 

[Tuatara]

I think you have a problem with comprehension.

No, you got your twat hurt and now you're going full k*nt mode.

First act of the defeated. Out with the profanities and insults.

 

[Eaglewings]

Yeah ... I bet atheism takes a lot of faith.

.

Please actually understand what the word faith means. It doesn't work in your sentence.

I believe the second definition fits perfectly.
FAITH
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

You just provided evidence in support of me. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proven. Atheism is an absence of belief. Get it together.

Atheists are always playing semantics with the definition of atheism. A true atheist believes there is no creator, otherwise known as "God". Cue the k*nt act.

See, this is why having a rational discussion with theists is impossible:

Me: The sky is blue.
Theist: Nope. Everyone like you thinks the sky is yellow.
Me: I just told you the sky is Blue.
Theist: But, you really believe the sky is yellow.

No matter what I say, you have already decided that you know what I "really" think. Not only is that irrational, but it is condescending and offensive.

Well you seem to know what Christians think...Hypocrite Much?

Everything that you are slamming WRNJ and K9Buck for you have done throughout this thread....

.

 

[K9Buck]

I think you have a problem with comprehension.

No, you got your twat hurt and now you're going full k*nt mode.

First act of the defeated. Out with the profanities and insults.

You're not bright. Then again, you're an atheist. LOL.

 

[K9Buck]

See, this is why having a rational discussion with theists is impossible:

What do you call someone who says there is no "God"?

Either an atheist, or an agnostic. But to say "There is no God" is not, in itself, a dogmatic statement. Are you familiar with the Null Hypothesis? Probably not, which is why you cannot understand that a statement can be one devoid of either intent, or belief. Reason doesn't require belief. Scientists don't hold hands on Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart what goes up must come down! AMEN!" We know that gravity exists because the objective evidence says it does.

What I believe in is evidence. I will believe anything, regardless of how fantastic, or improbable, just so long as there is evidence to support it. However, the more outrageous a thing is, the more firm I require the evidence to be.

I thought it was "courageous" to be an atheist? Why not proudly proclaim yourself an atheist and stop with the semantics and k*nt act?

 

[Tuatara]

Atheism had definitions within it self.

Negative atheism,

also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

One who has no opinion on the existence of God/gods are agnostics.

 

[K9Buck]

One who has no opinion on the existence of God/gods are agnostics.

That's the first correct statement you've made.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not a skeptic. I am a rational atheist. There's a difference. I'm not looking for some personal experience, I a looking for empirical evidence.

Really? The Shroud of Turin?!?! Okay, let's look at all of the ways that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of nothing:

First of all, it is a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. Except, no examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face:

"When cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…"​

Sooo, we are to believe that a piece of cloth for which there is no evidence of its type existing, and which was contrary to both tradition of the time, and description in the Bible, itself, does not comport with burial, was the burial shroud of Jesus, and, magically, captured his image? Really?!?! Additionally, none of the gospels make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus' resurrection. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its holy texts, isn't it? There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. By the way, from your own article:

But the scientists doing the carbon dating were not amateurs, and the samples were tested in three separate labs. Moreover, the carbon date cohered with other evidence that the shroud was a medieval forgery, like the fact that there is no evidence of its existence until the 14th century.​

In other words,your vaunted "Shroud of Turin" is evidence of nothing, other than the desperation of Medieval Christian fanatics to come up with some actual empirical evidence to support their mythology. I can't believe that not only did you have the audacity to call the shroud of Turin empirical evidence of the existence of jesus, but you linked to a source that calls your evidence bullshit!

We haven't even established the existence of Jesus, yet, so let's not get into his mythical "miracles", shall we?

Boy, you sure do like gilding the lilly, don't you. From your article:

While these findings do not offer conclusive evidence, they also don't refute the theory first proffered by the Bulgarian archaeologists who found the remains while excavating under an ancient church on the island.

In other words, the bones may belong to John the Baptist, or they may belong to Akhmed the Dung merchant. So far your "empirical evidence" is astonishingly underwhelming.

Here is an updated Science Journal on the topic.. as they continue with this study
They found the parts tested were cut from the area hurt by fire damage in the 13th and repaired.

From this newest study..

This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma.

PolyTrauma means: died by intense trauma and torture at the time of death

The markings on the shroud shows a difference in the markings of blood compared to other crucifixions. They stabbed Jesus in the side to kill him faster.. These non-man made stains show the bloods stains to line up to this.


Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud

.

Really? You're still stuck on the burial cloth that was created in the 12th century as proof of something that happened in the 1st century? Please give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. No archaeologist of any respect gives any credence to the fake Shroud of Turin. There is no blood on the Shroud of Turn. It was tested. It wasn't blood.

Really? Listen, there are so many scientist's of all faiths still exploring this..This is not a closed case .. except in your mind.

There is not Empirical Evidence that it is a Fake..dude


This is an excellent Scientific A++ link to read on the shroud . Which can explain it much better than me..

"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."

Shroud of Turin - evidence it is authentic; the real shroud of Jesus Christ




.

Oh, for fuck's sakes! Now you are denying science (carbon dating) in order to claim that the Shroud of Turin is a scientific discovery. Give it up, Slick. The Shroud of Turin is a hoax. If it makes you feel better believing in it, that's up to you. But, please quit trying to convince me that it is something that it clearly isn't.

Don't piss in a cup, and try to tell me it's Iced Tea!

You are refuting science ButtHead .. Why didn't you even read the Fucking link...


"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."

"The fire of 1532 could not have greatly affected the vanillin content of lignin in all parts of the shroud equally. The thermal conductivity of linen is very low... therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth could not have become very hot." "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of the scorches illustrates this fact." "Different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test [i.e. tested positive]." "The lignin on shroud samples and on samples from the Dead Sea scrolls does not give the test [i.e. tests negative]."

"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test [i.e. test negative], the cloth must be quite old." "A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."

"A gum/dye/mordant [(for affixing dye)] coating is easy to observe on... radiocarbon [sample] yarns. No other part of the shroud shows such a coating." "The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on pristine replacement material to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth." "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291 AD and was not common until more than 100 years later." "Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material." "The consequence of this conclusion is that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth."

"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."

"A significant amount of charred cellulose was removed during a restoration of the shroud in 2002." "A new radiocarbon analysis should be done on the charred material retained from the 2002 restoration."

Tell you what, when someone does that; when someone reruns the carbon dating analysis, you lemme know the results. In the meantime, we have three different tests, all with the same results.

In 2008 former STURP member John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. Jackson stated that this could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.

In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article in that journal with Rachel A Freer-Waters. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample that was left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon dating exercise, and were assisted by the director of the Gloria F Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. They viewed the fragment using a low magnification (~30×) stereomicroscope, as well as under high magnification (320×) viewed through both transmitted light and polarized light, and then with epifluorescence microscopy. They found “only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers” and no evidence that the samples actually used for measurements in the C14 dating processes were dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material.

In other words, no one is ever going to retest the Shroud, because your disputed "evidence" has already been examined, and rejected. I hate to burst your bubble, snowflake - your Shroud is a fake.

 

[Eaglewings]

Atheism had definitions within it self.

Negative atheism,

also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

One who has no opinion on the existence of God/gods are agnostics.

What about upside down atheism , or inside out atheism..?

.

 

[Czernobog]

Please actually understand what the word faith means. It doesn't work in your sentence.

I believe the second definition fits perfectly.
FAITH
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

You just provided evidence in support of me. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proven. Atheism is an absence of belief. Get it together.

Atheists are always playing semantics with the definition of atheism. A true atheist believes there is no creator, otherwise known as "God". Cue the k*nt act.

See, this is why having a rational discussion with theists is impossible:

Me: The sky is blue.
Theist: Nope. Everyone like you thinks the sky is yellow.
Me: I just told you the sky is Blue.
Theist: But, you really believe the sky is yellow.

No matter what I say, you have already decided that you know what I "really" think. Not only is that irrational, but it is condescending and offensive.

Well you seem to know what Christians think...Hypocrite Much?

Everything that you are slamming WRNJ and K9Buck for you have done throughout this thread....

.

Back to lying I see. Please quote where I have done any such thing.

 

[Czernobog]

Atheism had definitions within it self.

Negative atheism,

also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

One who has no opinion on the existence of God/gods are agnostics.

What about upside down atheism , or inside out atheism..?

.

"Hey! If we can't rationally defeat the argument, let's just mock it!"

 

[ChrisL]

Well let me rephrase that.. Some of the worlds strongest Christians were skeptics..yet because they were open when searching they were shown, in amazing ways..There are also people who are so convinced with the idea that God is a fairy-tail they wouldn't see it if it hit them in the face...

I'm not a skeptic. I am a rational atheist. There's a difference. I'm not looking for some personal experience, I a looking for empirical evidence.

Now with that said..

We do have Empirical Evidence that Jesus indeed died on the cross...and by the blood stains on the cloth, he died exactly how the Bible said He died..
'Finding Jesus': Shroud of Turin Q&A - CNN

Really? The Shroud of Turin?!?! Okay, let's look at all of the ways that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of nothing:

First of all, it is a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. Except, no examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face:

"When cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…"​

Sooo, we are to believe that a piece of cloth for which there is no evidence of its type existing, and which was contrary to both tradition of the time, and description in the Bible, itself, does not comport with burial, was the burial shroud of Jesus, and, magically, captured his image? Really?!?! Additionally, none of the gospels make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus' resurrection. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its holy texts, isn't it? There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. By the way, from your own article:

But the scientists doing the carbon dating were not amateurs, and the samples were tested in three separate labs. Moreover, the carbon date cohered with other evidence that the shroud was a medieval forgery, like the fact that there is no evidence of its existence until the 14th century.​

In other words,your vaunted "Shroud of Turin" is evidence of nothing, other than the desperation of Medieval Christian fanatics to come up with some actual empirical evidence to support their mythology. I can't believe that not only did you have the audacity to call the shroud of Turin empirical evidence of the existence of jesus, but you linked to a source that calls your evidence bullshit!

We know then by the same chapters that Jesus did indeed produce miracles that his personal disciples recorded. Even they wanted to see evidence..

We haven't even established the existence of Jesus, yet, so let's not get into his mythical "miracles", shall we?

We Scientifically know that John the Baptist did indeed live, and have found his remains..So there is another 2000 year old story that made it into the bible..

Scientists find new evidence supporting John the Baptist bones theory

Boy, you sure do like gilding the lilly, don't you. From your article:

While these findings do not offer conclusive evidence, they also don't refute the theory first proffered by the Bulgarian archaeologists who found the remains while excavating under an ancient church on the island.

In other words, the bones may belong to John the Baptist, or they may belong to Akhmed the Dung merchant. So far your "empirical evidence" is astonishingly underwhelming.

Here is an updated Science Journal on the topic.. as they continue with this study
They found the parts tested were cut from the area hurt by fire damage in the 13th and repaired.

From this newest study..

This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma.

PolyTrauma means: died by intense trauma and torture at the time of death

The markings on the shroud shows a difference in the markings of blood compared to other crucifixions. They stabbed Jesus in the side to kill him faster.. These non-man made stains show the bloods stains to line up to this.


Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud

.

Really? You're still stuck on the burial cloth that was created in the 12th century as proof of something that happened in the 1st century? Please give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. No archaeologist of any respect gives any credence to the fake Shroud of Turin. There is no blood on the Shroud of Turn. It was tested. It wasn't blood.

Really? Listen, there are so many scientist's of all faiths still exploring this..This is not a closed case .. except in your mind.

There is not Empirical Evidence that it is a Fake..dude


This is an excellent Scientific A++ link to read on the shroud . Which can explain it much better than me..

"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."

Shroud of Turin - evidence it is authentic; the real shroud of Jesus Christ




.

Oh, for fuck's sakes! Now you are denying science (carbon dating) in order to claim that the Shroud of Turin is a scientific discovery. Give it up, Slick. The Shroud of Turin is a hoax. If it makes you feel better believing in it, that's up to you. But, please quit trying to convince me that it is something that it clearly isn't.

Don't piss in a cup, and try to tell me it's Iced Tea!

More likely to be warm tea. Lol!

 

[Czernobog]

See, this is why having a rational discussion with theists is impossible:

What do you call someone who says there is no "God"?

Either an atheist, or an agnostic. But to say "There is no God" is not, in itself, a dogmatic statement. Are you familiar with the Null Hypothesis? Probably not, which is why you cannot understand that a statement can be one devoid of either intent, or belief. Reason doesn't require belief. Scientists don't hold hands on Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart what goes up must come down! AMEN!" We know that gravity exists because the objective evidence says it does.

What I believe in is evidence. I will believe anything, regardless of how fantastic, or improbable, just so long as there is evidence to support it. However, the more outrageous a thing is, the more firm I require the evidence to be.

I thought it was "courageous" to be an atheist? Why not proudly proclaim yourself an atheist and stop with the semantics and k*nt act?

Have I said otherwise? I am an atheist. And just because I'm more intelligent than you are, making it impossible for you to rationally engage with me, don't get all butt hurt, throwing around crude words to make yourself seem tough. Here, maybe this will help:

 

[keepitreal]

Especially you don't beat them when they haven't done anything wrong. Not believing in something is NOT wrong or bad or evil.

First of all, I never said anything about punishing a child for eternity. I was simply using it as an example that actions have consequences. God does not send people to Hell for not believing in Him. They send themselves to Hell because they refused to admit that they are a sinner and spit in the face of God. They say that they want nothing to do with God. God simply grants them their wish. Think about the magnitude of such a crime. You are telling the One who created you and deserves your worship to f*ck off and die. If I was God, I be pretty pissed about that. Wouldn't you? And, as I have mentioned before, God gave us a way out. It's a free gift. You don't have to earn it. Simple believe and repent. BTW, the Bible teaches that everyone is born with an awareness of God. But most people suppress this awareness because they love their sin more than their Creator. Such selfish arrogance deserves eternity in Hell. Wouldn't you agree?

A way out of WHAT exactly? How about this God critter just leaves me alone? I didn't ask for him to create me. I will not worship something that places his own creations into a fire pit for "punishment." I think it is wrong and evil. That doesn't describe anything that I would ever consider "good."

God is not sending to Hell. YOU are! You are the one who sinned. You are the one who is rejecting a gift, bought at a terrible price. Quit blaming God. It's like blaming Bush. YOU are responsible for where you spend eternity. No one else.

God is not sending to Hell. YOU are! You are the one who sinned. You are the one who is rejecting a gift, bought at a terrible price. Quit blaming God. It's like blaming Bush. YOU are responsible for where you spend eternity. No one else.

You know, that type of response
doesn't draw people to God, it pushes them farther away

First of all, her argument, reasoning, is valid...
your response was totally out of line and improper

What was the point of telling her
to quit blaming God...SHE'S sending herself to hell
SHE'S the one who sinned...SHE is rejecting Jesus
SHE is responsible for where she spends eternity

Why would she blame God, if she doesn't believe in Him?

Why would a loving and merciful God, create hell?

Why would she differentiate sin from right and wrong?

How could she accept a wonderful gift,
and realize the price it cost,
if she does not know Who gave it to her?

How is she, alone, responsible for
where she spends eternity, if it is dependent on
who is watering the seed that was obviously planted?

You're in for a rude awakening.

And that is exactly why you are going to Hell. The sin of pride. You have sinned. Everyone has.

No, you're in for a rude awakening,
if you keep telling people they are going to hell!

You have no idea what God is doing in her life
or the road He paved for her to find Him!

If I were you, I'd stop focusing on
the relationship she doesn't have with Him,
and focus on the relationship you think you have with Him!

Please try to stay on topic. Better yet, I'll just ignore you. How's that?

Better still, stop preaching...
telling her she's going to hell, then, you'll just ignore her...

Believing in God is not enough!
You are too wise in your own eyes!

Too wise? because finally someone cut through the toxic bs. Christians aren't responsible for turning people away or bringing people to God. God brings you to him. We turn away.
"Let the dead bury the dead" One of the kindest Christians Ive ever known said that about me one time and it was more than true.

Btw, narcissistic/manipulative back and forth on a political forum is a bit different than genuine soul searching.

Too wise?

Yes, both of you...too wise in your own eyes!

because finally someone cut through the toxic bs.

no, because once again, someone cut to the chase,
and spewed off their toxic bs.

The blind trying to lead the blind

Christians aren't responsible for turning people away or bringing people to God. God brings you to him. We turn away.

Wow...really now

Read all of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, then tell me that

"Let the dead bury the dead" One of the kindest Christians Ive ever known said that about me one time and it was more than true.

Maybe it still is

Btw, narcissistic/manipulative back and forth on a political forum is a bit different than genuine soul searching.

FYI...God is in control and uses it for His glory
You're judging the carnal, not discerning the Spirit

You don't know whose taking what, from what they're reading
and thirsty enough to seek, ask & knock elsewhere!

Stop trying to feed people solid food,
when, you yourself, are still drinking milk!

 

[Eaglewings]

See, this is why having a rational discussion with theists is impossible:

What do you call someone who says there is no "God"?

Either an atheist, or an agnostic. But to say "There is no God" is not, in itself, a dogmatic statement. Are you familiar with the Null Hypothesis? Probably not, which is why you cannot understand that a statement can be one devoid of either intent, or belief. Reason doesn't require belief. Scientists don't hold hands on Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart what goes up must come down! AMEN!" We know that gravity exists because the objective evidence says it does.

What I believe in is evidence. I will believe anything, regardless of how fantastic, or improbable, just so long as there is evidence to support it. However, the more outrageous a thing is, the more firm I require the evidence to be.

I thought it was "courageous" to be an atheist? Why not proudly proclaim yourself an atheist and stop with the semantics and k*nt act?

Have I said otherwise? I am an atheist. And just because I'm more intelligent than you are, making it impossible for you to rationally engage with me, don't get all butt hurt, throwing around crude words to make yourself seem tough. Here, maybe this will help:

Having to repeatedly say just how much smarter you are as you just did with K9Buck, and several other times in this thread. Shows me just how puerile and diffident your inner self worth and character must be , and need a puff up to justify to yourself .

One thing that came to mind is ...What is your coping mechanism when it comes to a tragedy? .. Do you not hope? This action alone shows someone has to trust.

.

 

[Czernobog]

See, this is why having a rational discussion with theists is impossible:

What do you call someone who says there is no "God"?

Either an atheist, or an agnostic. But to say "There is no God" is not, in itself, a dogmatic statement. Are you familiar with the Null Hypothesis? Probably not, which is why you cannot understand that a statement can be one devoid of either intent, or belief. Reason doesn't require belief. Scientists don't hold hands on Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart what goes up must come down! AMEN!" We know that gravity exists because the objective evidence says it does.

What I believe in is evidence. I will believe anything, regardless of how fantastic, or improbable, just so long as there is evidence to support it. However, the more outrageous a thing is, the more firm I require the evidence to be.

I thought it was "courageous" to be an atheist? Why not proudly proclaim yourself an atheist and stop with the semantics and k*nt act?

Have I said otherwise? I am an atheist. And just because I'm more intelligent than you are, making it impossible for you to rationally engage with me, don't get all butt hurt, throwing around crude words to make yourself seem tough. Here, maybe this will help:

Having to repeatedly say just how much smarter you are as you just did with K9Buck, and several other times in this thread. Shows me just how puerile and diffident your inner self worth and character must be , and need a puff up to justify to yourself .

One thing that came to mind is ...What is your coping mechanism when it comes to a tragedy? .. Do you not hope? This action alone shows someone has to trust.

.

Trust what? My "coping" mechanism is reason. Tragedy happens. That is the nature of life. Sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue. I do not "hope". I expect. I plan. I execute. In the case of the loss of someone I care about, I grieve, and then I go on. "Hope" is meaningless. It is akin to "wishful thinking". Jim's rules #1: Do what you can about what you can, and let the rest go. "Hope", and "worry" are the flip sides of the same useless coin. Nothing is accomplished by either. Accomplishments are achieved by action not "hope".

 

[Eaglewings]

Trust what? My "coping" mechanism is reason. Tragedy happens. That is the nature of life. Sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue. I do not "hope". I expect. I plan. I execute. In the case of the loss of someone I care about, I grieve, and then I go on. "Hope" is meaningless. It is akin to "wishful thinking". Jim's rules #1: Do what you can about what you can, and let the rest go. "Hope", and "worry" are the flip sides of the same useless coin. Nothing is accomplished by either. Accomplishments are achieved by action not "hope".

Expect what?

And "Jim's Rule~ Let it go to what? I mean where do you let it go to?

.

 

[Czernobog]

Trust what? My "coping" mechanism is reason. Tragedy happens. That is the nature of life. Sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue. I do not "hope". I expect. I plan. I execute. In the case of the loss of someone I care about, I grieve, and then I go on. "Hope" is meaningless. It is akin to "wishful thinking". Jim's rules #1: Do what you can about what you can, and let the rest go. "Hope", and "worry" are the flip sides of the same useless coin. Nothing is accomplished by either. Accomplishments are achieved by action not "hope".

Expect what?

Have you ever played...Chess...? Stratego...? Go...? Backgammon...? Any game of strategy? If you had, you would know that successful resolution of goal achievement is to anticipate outcomes. The prepared don't need to "hope", because they can expect, based on experience, and planning, what comes next.

And "Jim's Rule~ Let it go to what? I mean where do you let it go to?

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. I'm not going to waste my time explaining stupid questions.

Do better.

 

[Eaglewings]

What do you call someone who says there is no "God"?

Either an atheist, or an agnostic. But to say "There is no God" is not, in itself, a dogmatic statement. Are you familiar with the Null Hypothesis? Probably not, which is why you cannot understand that a statement can be one devoid of either intent, or belief. Reason doesn't require belief. Scientists don't hold hands on Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart what goes up must come down! AMEN!" We know that gravity exists because the objective evidence says it does.

What I believe in is evidence. I will believe anything, regardless of how fantastic, or improbable, just so long as there is evidence to support it. However, the more outrageous a thing is, the more firm I require the evidence to be.

I thought it was "courageous" to be an atheist? Why not proudly proclaim yourself an atheist and stop with the semantics and k*nt act?

Have I said otherwise? I am an atheist. And just because I'm more intelligent than you are, making it impossible for you to rationally engage with me, don't get all butt hurt, throwing around crude words to make yourself seem tough. Here, maybe this will help:

Having to repeatedly say just how much smarter you are as you just did with K9Buck, and several other times in this thread. Shows me just how puerile and diffident your inner self worth and character must be , and need a puff up to justify to yourself .

One thing that came to mind is ...What is your coping mechanism when it comes to a tragedy? .. Do you not hope? This action alone shows someone has to trust.

.

Trust what? My "coping" mechanism is reason. Tragedy happens. That is the nature of life. Sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue. I do not "hope". I expect. I plan. I execute. In the case of the loss of someone I care about, I grieve, and then I go on. "Hope" is meaningless. It is akin to "wishful thinking". Jim's rules #1: Do what you can about what you can, and let the rest go. "Hope", and "worry" are the flip sides of the same useless coin. Nothing is accomplished by either. Accomplishments are achieved by action not "hope".

Yes I agree worrying / fear is a big waste of time..When I find myself most stressed out is when I am fearing something out of my control.

Trust what? My "coping" mechanism is reason. Tragedy happens. That is the nature of life. Sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue. I do not "hope". I expect. I plan. I execute. In the case of the loss of someone I care about, I grieve, and then I go on. "Hope" is meaningless. It is akin to "wishful thinking". Jim's rules #1: Do what you can about what you can, and let the rest go. "Hope", and "worry" are the flip sides of the same useless coin. Nothing is accomplished by either. Accomplishments are achieved by action not "hope".

Expect what?

Have you ever played...Chess...? Stratego...? Go...? Backgammon...? Any game of strategy? If you had, you would know that successful resolution of goal achievement is to anticipate outcomes. The prepared don't need to "hope", because they can expect, based on experience, and planning, what comes next.

And "Jim's Rule~ Let it go to what? I mean where do you let it go to?

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. I'm not going to waste my time explaining stupid questions.

Do better.

I am tired and will answer one right now so you understand where I am coming from..and will answer the other one later..

As an addiction counselor in a rehab you try to give tools to those addicted to stay clean and sober..

The most important tool of all is learning to let go of what you have no control over...

Now in order to Let Go, you need to let it go to something other than yourself.. something larger than yourself which is what we call a Higher Power..

Now mind you, most come into rehab either not believing in a higher power, most are agnostic , no pressure..

Where / What do you turn your problems over to in order to let it go? ( Jim's Rule )

.