Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

Atheists seem to have a greatly belief in humanity and equality than religious people do. I care about every animals quality of life, not just my own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep

But what you just typed is a gross mis-characterization of belief. The problem is that you barely understand the basics of belief.

Some of history's most accomplished rhetoricians are/have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Over the centuries they've covered complex theological issues that you couldn't begin to grasp. That's why PP told you to read Aquinas and others.

What about modern day thinkers -- you know, people with modern day knowledge, based on scientific findings from the last 100 years? Those ancient thinkers were amazing given their limited knowledge of the universe -- but it was limited -- and it was also deadly to be outwardly atheist.

These days not too many great thinkers are also religious.

Let's review.
1. Once again some argument of yours gets blown out of the water. (This time, it's your claim that religion can be boiled down to "God did it.")
2. And once again, you counter with a complete about-face and change of subject. ("Instead, let's talk about modern thinkers!")
3. With a sprinkling of your own conjectures ("These days not too many great thinkers are religious") that you'll leave for somebody else to prove or disprove.

You really are formulaic. And your formula is as slippery as a fish.

FYI - "You" is more than one person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here. I don't.

I'd wager those that do are afraid of death and it prevents them from being fully rational about it.

when you grow up with tormented with visions of smoke and flames and devil burning your body for eternity. Images pushed over and over on young innocent children by adults.

so maybe when you are a kid but once you become a mature adult with a functioning brain, how do you rationalize angels and devil?

he will be tormented with fire and brimstone
furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth

sure seems like lots of people grew up with fire and brimstone!

I know we tried before but could one of the believers point on something about why they believe there is a god? something other than opinion?

Another troll move....
1. Pull up the most recent post that went your way, even if it was your own post, even if you have to reach back several pages.
2. Add one completely unrelated question.
3. Bonus points if this question was answered earlier in the thread, maybe not an answer you like, but it was answered. Now you can pretend you never saw the earlier answers.

OP, what on earth could anyone possibly say to you? There is no definitive proof of God, and no one here is saying that there is. I pointed to several thinkers - Aquinas in particular - whose work was and is instrumental in the formulation of my beliefs. I can't prove to you that there is a God, anymore than you can prove to me that there is not. Such is belief.

Let it go. No one owes you a justification of their beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

It was a lie and you know this. It is not up to nonbelievers to supply the motive behind using the Solstice to make Jesus-is-Fun Day. Ask your god why if you are confused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here. I don't.

I'd wager those that do are afraid of death and it prevents them from being fully rational about it.

when you grow up with tormented with visions of smoke and flames and devil burning your body for eternity. Images pushed over and over on young innocent children by adults.

so maybe when you are a kid but once you become a mature adult with a functioning brain, how do you rationalize angels and devil?

he will be tormented with fire and brimstone
furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth

sure seems like lots of people grew up with fire and brimstone!

I know we tried before but could one of the believers point on something about why they believe there is a god? something other than opinion?

It is sad about the jpgs. I really liked the you/point one. I plan on using it in real life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep

But what you just typed is a gross mis-characterization of belief. The problem is that you barely understand the basics of belief.

Some of history's most accomplished rhetoricians are/have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Over the centuries they've covered complex theological issues that you couldn't begin to grasp. That's why PP told you to read Aquinas and others.

What about modern day thinkers -- you know, people with modern day knowledge, based on scientific findings from the last 100 years? Those ancient thinkers were amazing given their limited knowledge of the universe -- but it was limited -- and it was also deadly to be outwardly atheist.

These days not too many great thinkers are also religious.

Let's review.
1. Once again some argument of yours gets blown out of the water. (This time, it's your claim that religion can be boiled down to "God did it.")
2. And once again, you counter with a complete about-face and change of subject. ("Instead, let's talk about modern thinkers!")
3. With a sprinkling of your own conjectures ("These days not too many great thinkers are religious") that you'll leave for somebody else to prove or disprove.

You really are formulaic. And your formula is as slippery as a fish.

It's your basic troll gambit. Yet the funny .jpgs got deleted. Life is unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep

But what you just typed is a gross mis-characterization of belief. The problem is that you barely understand the basics of belief.

Some of history's most accomplished rhetoricians are/have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Over the centuries they've covered complex theological issues that you couldn't begin to grasp. That's why PP told you to read Aquinas and others.

What about modern day thinkers -- you know, people with modern day knowledge, based on scientific findings from the last 100 years? Those ancient thinkers were amazing given their limited knowledge of the universe -- but it was limited -- and it was also deadly to be outwardly atheist.

These days not too many great thinkers are also religious.

Let's review.
1. Once again some argument of yours gets blown out of the water. (This time, it's your claim that religion can be boiled down to "God did it.")
2. And once again, you counter with a complete about-face and change of subject. ("Instead, let's talk about modern thinkers!")
3. With a sprinkling of your own conjectures ("These days not too many great thinkers are religious") that you'll leave for somebody else to prove or disprove.

You really are formulaic. And your formula is as slippery as a fish.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This thread has offered nothing to answer my original question. The believers just "know". They have their own definition of truth. I left this thread a long time ago.

Not getting an answer is very different than not liking the answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep

But what you just typed is a gross mis-characterization of belief. The problem is that you barely understand the basics of belief.

Some of history's most accomplished rhetoricians are/have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Over the centuries they've covered complex theological issues that you couldn't begin to grasp. That's why PP told you to read Aquinas and others.

What about modern day thinkers -- you know, people with modern day knowledge, based on scientific findings from the last 100 years? Those ancient thinkers were amazing given their limited knowledge of the universe -- but it was limited -- and it was also deadly to be outwardly atheist.

These days not too many great thinkers are also religious.

My fingers are itching to post a gif of a bear talking out of his butt....

You're kidding, right? I wouldn't expect you to know the names of today's great theologians. But there are lots of great thinkers including, yes, in scientific fields, who are religious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep

But what you just typed is a gross mis-characterization of belief. The problem is that you barely understand the basics of belief.

Some of history's most accomplished rhetoricians are/have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Over the centuries they've covered complex theological issues that you couldn't begin to grasp. That's why PP told you to read Aquinas and others.

What about modern day thinkers -- you know, people with modern day knowledge, based on scientific findings from the last 100 years? Those ancient thinkers were amazing given their limited knowledge of the universe -- but it was limited -- and it was also deadly to be outwardly atheist.

These days not too many great thinkers are also religious.

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Why doesn't the moderator delete posters like this? This is a half-assed troll post if ever there was a half-assed troll post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep

And this is a rewarding example of your MO.

Let's review:
1. Make a bold statement. For example, claim that the choice of December 25 was a "lie" rather than pragmatism or something else.
2. When challenged for proof, shrug and say "IDK."
3. When challenged that you can't make statements without support/evidence, change the subject completely. Preferably to an equally over-simplified and insulting misrepresentation. This brings us to the present post, "It's beyond me so God must have done it."

Wash, rinse, repeat. You really aren't interested in having adult conversations about these issues, are you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep

But what you just typed is a gross mis-characterization of belief. The problem is that you barely understand the basics of belief.

Some of history's most accomplished rhetoricians are/have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Over the centuries they've covered complex theological issues that you couldn't begin to grasp. That's why PP told you to read Aquinas and others.