 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
First of all, P123,
thanx for answering those questions.
Your answers will help me to help you be the best atheist ever!smile
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
Do you lvoe yourself as a simpleton, as a fool?
|
Yes, definitely!
|
atoz: great answer!
So you do also love over-simplifications and will love them even when they look foolish or make you look like a fool!
hmmmmmmmmmmm
Now are you a liar?
And do you love liars?
And do you love yourself as a liar?smile
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
But let's be specific:
Do you lvoe the dark?
Do you lvoe yourself as dirty?
Most dirt is dark or black.
|
See, this is where the love/hate dichotomy breaks down.
|
Atoz: P123, you mean this is where YOUR Love-Hate dichotomy falls down!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
I don't love the dark,
and I don't hate the dark,
but I think that it must be understood.
|
atoz: Ha! Good try about understood!
But not good enough....
you don't have the pure passion of Love for the dark to understand it, other than to undertand it in order to lvoe it, rather than the other way around like AE and BS and CS: to lvoe in order to understand!
And in messing with mr.inbetween, you are simply saying that you want to hate the dark whenever u get good and ready to hate it and when u get good and ready to love it whenever!
You are fickle: mr. lukewarm: blowing hot and cold.
Do you lvoe or hate being fickle?
Now:
If you lvoe fools, you must also love the dark as a fool.
If you love fools, you must also love foolish darkies!
BUT, if you now say that you don't love the dark,
then you must ALSO hate dark fools!smile --as you try to make a difference without any distinction or a distinction without any diff: there is no diff between a foolish darkie and a dark fool!
And if you say you don't hate the dark, all the above applies in reverse.
So your job is to see that it's one for all and all for one:
If you hate you as any one word,
you hate all of the rest of you when you desrcribe yourself as that one word.
Example:
To hate you a liar means you hate you as lying fool, a lying simpleton, a lying scientist, a lying son, a lying -everythinhg.
And to love you as any word means that you also love all the rest of you as that one word.
Ex:
To love you as fool means you love you ALSO love you as foolish liar, a foolsih joketeller, a foolish son and a foolish whatever.
So you are doing two things at one time:
both loving you and hating you at the same time!
Mixed up!
Which is why you of course say honestly but mean:
I neither love the dark all the way,
nor do I hate the dark all the way: I love it when i feel like it, I hate it when I feel like it.
So you must condemn people for hating you as dark when you love it, and for loving you as dark when you hate it!
Very inconsistent, P123!smile
Very consistent in your inconsistency!smile
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| atoz wrote: |
Do you LOVE ignorance?
If not, you are doing science ALSO because you hate ignorance: scientific and otherwise! because you ALSO hate ignorance---which is knowledge tooooooooooooo!
|
Ignorance isn't knowledge; it's the opposite.
|
atoz: But all opposites mean each other!
So to not know IS to know that you don't know!
U can't be attached to NASA Science with their KNOWN UNKS and UNK UNKS: Unknown Unknowns!smile
There is a LOT of knowledge IN Ignorance!
And vice versa!smile
Don't you see?
U have to be patient with you and THImK about this:
but to be patient with yourself,
you also have to lvoe yourself as sick
since patient people look sick and vice versa!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
But again, it isn't an issue of love or hate.
|
atoz: See how you sound like that double-hearted person again? smile
How can you be angry at the pentagon for treating soldiers like dirt,---which is becasue they hate dirt and those soldiers---while running away from the Dirt of Hate in your own life for you as dark or dirty or ignorant or in the darkness of igniorance or with no light of knowledge---which justifies the Pent for treating those soldiers like you SAY you don't want them treated?
hmmmmmmmmm
It is called being a hypcorite.
So here we go again:
do you lvoe yourself as a hypocrite or as foolish hyp or as hyp fool---since you lvoe yourself as a fool?
See how it's all interconnected?
Hope that starts you on the painful but ultimately pleasurable journey of becoming the best atheist: like AE and BS and CS: AN AIL: AN ATHEIST IN LOVE!smile
with all Love and R for myself as a hypocrite, a fool, an ignoramus and dark and unknown and unknowing and not understanding and fickle and as luke and as warm so that I AM like AE and BS and CS,smile
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7485
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry atoz, you left me behind somewhere there and I really don't understand what you're saying! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Sorry atoz, you left me behind somewhere there and I really don't understand what you're saying! |
It takes time, P123.
And your desire to know and understand,--in this case--- what I'm saying, will help you...as long as you love yourself as not knowing and as not understanding. Smile
So now the next thing to do to understand what I'm saying is to ask any questions!smile
With the Love that we know no matter what else we don't know, which Love enables us to also know that those who know that they don't know know more than those who don't know that they don't know,smile
Atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
This relates more to the OP than to the current conversation, but I didn't think I needed to start a new thread for these:
More Atheist Quotes
A sampler:
| Quote: | | ‘An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.’ |
| Quote: | | ‘Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?’ - Epicurus |
| Quote: | | ‘Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.’ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7485
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The ancient Greeks like Epicurus were really fantastic. Most people have no appreciation for them.
The Greek enlightenment was a wonderful spike in the history of reason. They were the first people to start to question and to actually carry out science. They understood very well that there were no Gods. One of the key insights came from Xenophanes:
| Quote: | The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpture like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own. |
What a wonderful insight! And this guy lived like 2500 years ago!
The Greeks were also the first to really start studying science. Democritus figured out that atoms must exist, and a guy named Aristarchus of Samos figured out that the Sun is at the center of our solar system and that the Earth travels around it. And this was 2300 years ago!
Unfortunately, the candle that was Greek intellectualism was snuffed out by the dark ages which were marked by religious zealotry and ignorance.
Just think about how much ancient knowledge was lost and how human progress was put back when the Christians and Muslims took their turns in burning the Great Library of Alexandria. We'll probably never know how Aristarchus figured out (without any sophisticated instruments) that the Earth travels around the Sun.
Instead of progressing from where Greek research stopped, we REGRESSED. It would take more than a thousand years to get back up to speed again, and even then it was extremely difficult. Galileo really had to risk his life to re-prove what Aristarchus figured out so long before. And today in America the religious right is still fighting tooth and nail against science.
If the dark ages had never happened, then who knows; we might already have colonies on many different planets and moons in our solar system. Maybe we'd already be at Alpha Centauri. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | And today in America the religious right is still fighting tooth and nail against science.
|
Yes, I know. There are even a growing number of Americans who are opposing the development of nanotechnology based on religious beliefs (link). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7485
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | And today in America the religious right is still fighting tooth and nail against science.
|
Yes, I know. There are even a growing number of Americans who are opposing the development of nanotechnology based on religious beliefs (link). |
While I disagree with their reasoning, their conclusions might actually be reasonable in this case. Nanotechnology is scary stuff. I'm looking forward to the day they invent a self-replicating nanobot which just eats everything in sight. It'll get out and turn the entire surface of the planet into a lifeless grey goo... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Some Quotes |
|
|
This website you listed is pretty much dishonest. It commits the fallacy of "quoting out of context". As I stated above "Thomas Jefferson was NOT an atheist". Likewise, Benjamin Franklin was NOT an atheist. Gandhi was a Hindu, not an atheist.
Isaac Asimov was an atheist, so was Nietzshe. But Voltaire? Mark Twain? Albert Einstein?
Since I know for certain that Jefferson and Franklin were not atheist's, I would suspect that many of these other quotes are out of context. David Barton commits this fallacy also. I read one of his books where he tried to show that John Quincy Adams believed in the diety of Christ by quoting him out of context. Adams was a Unitarian, in the early 19th century sense of the term.
So basicly that website is an atheist canard. It would be like quoting Nietzshe out of context and then putting the misquote beside a quote from Pope John Paul III so to give the impression that Nietzshe was a devout Catholic after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you're going to say the quotes are taken out of context, it would bolster your statement to provide the context of the quotes. How are they taken out of context - ie. how would the meanings of these quotes change if they were in context?
Also, I don't think it says anywhere that these people were atheists - just that the quotes have the flavour of atheism about them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7485
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Some Quotes |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
Isaac Asimov was an atheist, so was Nietzshe. But Voltaire? Mark Twain? Albert Einstein? |
It's hard to say what Voltaire really believed. Certainly he produced a lot of atheistic writings and ideas.
Mark Twain was definitely an atheist:
| Quote: |
(From Letter to Joseph Twichell, reprinted in Mark Twain's Mysterious Stranger Manuscripts (1969), edited by William Gibson):
"There is nothing. There is no God and no universe, there is only empty space, and in it a lost and homeless and wandering and companionless and indestructible Thought. And I am that thought. And God, and the Universe, and Time, and Life, and Death, and Joy and Sorrow and Pain only a grotesque and brutal dream, evolved from the frantic imagination of that same Thought." |
As for Einstein, if I am an atheist, then he was definitely one as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1741
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been doing a little reading on Einstein lately. I would label him as an atheist - he had writings that referred to God but not in the sense of a religious God - more in the sense of the laws of physics. "God" being almost an acronym for "it all". I'm happy to produce quotes in context if needed.
In fact, he was offended when people took his quotes out of context to mean that he was religious - and he specifically rebutted those claims.
It's kind of a non-issue - except to show how quotes are taken out of context and assumptions made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | If you're going to say the quotes are taken out of context, it would bolster your statement to provide the context of the quotes. |
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Example: if one quotes Benjamin Franklin, as the website does, it is their burden to prove their claim.
| Quote: |
Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. That he governs by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, 1790 |
The print source is "The Portable Enlightenment reader" edited by Isaac Kramnick, part three. Although it's probably on line as well.
| Quote: |
Also, I don't think it says anywhere that these people were atheists - just that the quotes have the flavour of atheism about them. |
Benjamin Franklin doesn't seem to have much of an atheist flavour to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7485
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
Benjamin Franklin doesn't seem to have much of an atheist flavour to me. |
All of the founding fathers would have been considered radical anti-religious heretics at the time.
Just look at Payne's famous quote about miracles:
"Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie?"
The founding fathers might not have been atheists in the modern sense, but for their day and age, the Deists were essentially atheists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7485
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | I've been doing a little reading on Einstein lately. I would label him as an atheist - he had writings that referred to God but not in the sense of a religious God - more in the sense of the laws of physics. "God" being almost an acronym for "it all". I'm happy to produce quotes in context if needed.
In fact, he was offended when people took his quotes out of context to mean that he was religious - and he specifically rebutted those claims.
It's kind of a non-issue - except to show how quotes are taken out of context and assumptions made. |
Einstein was obviously an atheist by any reasonable definition of the word, but I find his choice of words to be unfortunate. For the next thousand years atheists are going to have to correct people for misinterpreting what he says.
He used the word 'God' in a highly non-standard way, and that (understandably) causes a lot of confusion. Scientists shouldn't do that; they should be more clear. As a scientist, you want to clear up confusion rather than cause it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
