"He's a believer these days"
'Russell described himself both as an agnostic and an atheist. For most of his adult life Russell maintained that religion is little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects that religion might have, it is largely harmful to people. He believed religion and the religious outlook (he considered communism and other systematic ideologies to be forms of religion) serve to impede knowledge, foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war, oppression, and misery that have beset the world. He was a member of the Advisory Council of the British Humanist Association and President of Cardiff Humanists until his death'
(and back to the ol' revenge fantasy, I see):
"now that he's expericiencing God's wrath firsthand"
'The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history.
[b]Which deity ceased to exist and made [i]you[/i] Lord God Almighty?[/b]
And you'd do well ro take heed of Xotan's comment in the following:
...and it's quotee (who deigned to come here and argue the toss), Orange Witness. That fundie's looking - and sounding - very familiar, eh? Certainly with it's Circular Arguments by said fundie, and the evasions. Certainly identical, re. subject matter. And whilst different in subject, these threads & their quoted fundies, also FSTDTer comments, are very relevant:
I refer you to the comments by Doctor Whom & Old Viking
I refer you to the comment by Thundersqueaks.
"that atheists will not accept the truth* of religion no matter how much "evidence" they are given"
Just change 'atheists' for fundies and 'religion' for reality in the case of this thread. And as proved in ths thread, 'Truth' = lies.
"I still maintain that Noah was a historical figure, the global flood took place as described in the Bible, etc."
Do any extra-Biblical secular peer-reviewed sources say so...? Prove us wrong. If not, then this 'Noah' never existed. Ergo, no 'Ark'. No 'Global Flood. The Bible is lies And 'God' doesn't exist. QED.
Prove. Us. Wrong. The ancient Chinese certainly prove you - and your so-called 'Truth', the Bible - that a so-called 'Global Flood never happened, as they & their civilisation existed during said 'Flood', as well as before & after.
"There are prominent Islamic preachers who have seen and understood that the present Western-style education is mixed with issues that run contrary to our beliefs in Islam," he said.
"Like rain. We believe it is a creation of god rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.
"Like saying the world is a sphere. If it runs contrary to the teachings of Allah, we reject it. We also reject the theory of Darwinism."
Nope. Still not seeing the extra-Biblical, peer-reviewed, secular references to a so-called 'Noah' (least of all a single shred of evidence for a so-called 'Ark'; and you'd think that at least one 1:1 Bible-specified replica would've been built & launched - with at least two of all the hundreds of millions of species that exist today, as a 'living museum' piece/experiment - before now).
"Why try to convince anyone to believe what you believe?"
'Belief' = 'Truth' And as proven in this thread, Subjective 'Truth' = lies. 2+2=5 [/"1984"] The Bible states - as 'Truth': Pi = exactly 3. Reality - based on evidence. Facts, are impossible to dispute; 2+2=4. Pi = 3.14159... Go ahead. Prove reality wrong. If you can.
Just build a wheel, on the basis of your Bible's 'Truth', for a start.
Now, I wonder where I stated that she must build a replica Ark? As per the Dutch fundie, there have been others who have built replica Arks beforehand. So why didn't they launch & have such replicas undergo seaworthiness tests...? (Question: why wasn't that built for the film "Evan Almighty" actually used? For the supposed 'Flood' scenes, why was CGI used...?) And what was to stop said Dutch fundie from diassembling his 'Ark', take the parts to another country that isn't as strict re. 'Health and Safety' (about onlookers laughing themselves into a hospital bed, or an early grave, at such a spectacle of FAIL), and rebuild, launch such & thus prove all we Atheists wrong, seeing as he's rich enough to have built such a craft that's supposedly more seaworthy than the smaller Rochambeau in the first place?
...or mayhaps he was relying on Holland's 'Health & 'Safety' laws, just so he wouldn't have to suffer the humiliation of being proved wrong, just as someone in this thread keeps evading the questions, for fear of having to admit that her 'Truth' - the 'Word of God' her own so-called 'beliefs' are based on - would never stand up to scrutiny (nor would said 'Word of God') in a court of law, never mind a logical debate here in FSTDT, leaving her no alternative but admit it's all a tissue of lies, start questioning her own 'beliefs' with a self-critical eye, then do a Jonathan Edwards, and become an Atheist.
'Denial is not a river in Egypt'. That phrase exists for a reason. And Reason states that the actual flooding of the Nile is one of the legends about local floods, which were ripped off by those who came up with the Bible. A prime example of Cultural Theft ('Easter'? 'Christmas'? Stolen from the Pagan Eostre & Winter Solstice festivals, respectively), just to provide a basis of a religion so bereft of it's own traditions & stories.
"I don't want to get into a juvenile back and forth"
(but you are - and continuing to do so, by your continuing to exist here in FSTDT; certainly in this thread. Unless you'd like to prove us wrong: by leaving, and never coming back. Ever.)
"you keep suggesting that you want me to answer your questions or debate you. If you are up for it, I'm game"
Your words. Yet, you continue to evade questions; 'wading through questions'? Excuses, excuses. Just do as, say, Giveitaday does: Do a point-by-point critique/analysis/answer, by copy & pasting the relevant question text, and then spacing out such with your answers in between. Or are you too illiterate to be capable of such a simple task...?
Your 'apologies' are worth less than your credibility, certainly as empty as your demands for us to debate you (when you refuse to answer our questions to our satisfaction). Nor are your evasions by being deliberately dense. If you really want to apologise, start with your 'beliefs', that have moulded your very way of thinking. For that itself is in error, as you keep proving time & again, certainly re. your attitude displayed here**. 'Why should I apologize for my beliefs'? That link shows that you have no choice but to do so, as it only shows you, and your attitude to other people not exactly like you (which in itself is discriminatory) in it's actual light.
Prove us wrong. Again, as per your words, verbatim: 'you keep suggesting that you want me to answer your questions or debate you. If you are up for it, I'm game'
Otherwise, you = Orange Witness (an openly admitted troll), and thus what he - and his Jehovah's Witness 'beliefs' - says is less than zero, as per the first link. Want to equate yourself with him? Prove us wrong otherwise.
*- 'Truth'? No fundie knows the exact definition, least of all the actual meaning, of that word. Nor does the very basis of their 'belief', for that matter, as proved by their own Scripture. [i]I[/i] do, however.
**- I've worked with Christians. I know Christians. A Christian is my best friend. My dear, you are no Christian. [/Lloyd Bentsen]
You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency? [b]At long last, have you left no sense of [i]decency[/i]?[/b]
[i]You[/i] have seen fit to bring it [[i]your[/i] blatant bigotry & discrimination] out, and if there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good:
"Do you have to mention religion at all? Are you so utterly incapable of compassion and love that the only way you can relate to people is through your fundamentalist beliefs?
Besides, what makes you so sure that you too will escape hell. Read your Bible properly and with attention and you will see that fundamentalism is essentially a virulent form of self-righeouness that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees.
In believeing as you do that someone is going to hell, you are arrogating to yourself a decision that is god's alone. That is pride. In believing that you are saved is also pride and presumption. In even thinking as you do about hell and others you are setting limits to the power and the mercy of god. That is a blasphemy. For shame!"
And just like Fred Phelps & his Westboro Baptist Church, they have no shame, neither. Remember: Hitler hated homosexuals too.
Remember: Matthew 7:1.
"The end is coming. That great day of jusdgemnet. See you there!"
Ah yes, that 'Christian Love' I've heard about so much. [/Doug Piranha-levels of sarcasm] Like I say: whenever they know they can't force their way of thinking on someone, they resort to that old fundie standard: 'Turn or Burn'. Like I say: Reduced to unjustifiable threats, nay, use of psychological blackmail, of fundies' 'Hellfire & Damnation!' & 'Sinner' bullshit.
'Hellfire'? 'Afterlife'? Just two words completely annihilates your argument, pal: Prove it. And the Bible isn't proof, neither. You can't scare those who are no longer afraid.
For three reasons:
1- Matthew 7:1 means you don't even have the right to so much as think about that, never mind say it. The end is coming. That great day of judgement. See you there! >:D In saying what you did, no, you are the sinners. And then she was eternally tortured.
2- Further proof of the unjustifiable doctrines 'Grace by Faith only' and 'OSAS', so favoured by the right-wing fundie bigot. Fact: you're no more a Christian than Richard Dawkins is. And he goes by the Humanist doctrine of 'Treat others as you would want them to treat you'. Commit acts of gratuitous kindness. Be good for goodness' sake. Dawkins is more Christian than you'll ever be. Prove me wrong.
Ergo, the need, nay, life or death requirement of you & your ilk to cherry-pick from your own 'Word of God'.
Otherwise, how would you be able to justify your need to be judgemental about others, nay, generally speak, act & think like a cuntbag douche, masquerading under the illusion that they are 'Saved'? 'Grace by Faith only' and 'OSAS' gives fundies like you carte blanche to behave in this unjustifiable way. That's why these doctrines are so favoured by right-wing Fundamentalist Christians.
James 2:14-26. In essence: In 'talking the talk', but not walking the walk as well - by acting like a Christian is supposed to: meek, humble, introverted, reserved unopinionated, always turning the other cheek & loving your enemies unconditionally, and generally being hyper-tolerant, you yourself - and all your right-wing fundie ilk - prove yourselves to be the hypocritical, unChristian Paulians you realy are. One word: Quakers.
3- Just ask any Emeritus Professor of Theology. Y'know, 'Emeritus'. As in those who know infinitely more about your own beliefs than you do. Theyll tell you that - via Jesus' sacrifice - we are all going to Heaven, regardless of if we 'believe' or not. Period. End of story. Ergo... (check one):
[ ] Sure, 'the end is coming'. The 'great day of judgement'. ...not. >:D . See you there - in Heaven!
[ ] God doesn't exist - as doesn't a so-called 'afterlife' (Again, just two words completely annihilate your argument: Prove it.), and - like we Atheists - you'll end up looking like leftover pizza: cold, clotted, and stuck to the bottom of a box.
The so-called 'Soul'? I've said it before, but it bears repeating: just two words completely annihilates your argument (and thus the justifications of your so-called 'religion's existence): Prove it.
Choose wisely. If you dare.
As I said, I like to think that people can change."
Well, former Olympic gold medallist athlete and long-time Christian (certainly longer than someone in this thread who shall remain deliberately dense; 'wade through questions'? Evasion. Not allowed. Answer the questions, or admit yourself that your 'beliefs' and what such are based on are lies throughout) Jonathan Edwards did. It hasn't done him any harm.
Apparently it would immediately kill said deliberately dense person to do the same as he did: question her own 'beliefs' by dint of the same critical thinking faculties Jonathan possessed.
...and nope, not seeing any evidence - beyond the now proven lies (as admitted by you, dearie) - of any 'afterlife', neither. Now, why didn't Mr. Edwards take that into account, when he'd finally concluded that said 'Belief', your self-same 'Truth', was nothing but lies...?
Remember: 2+2=5, according to the 'Truth' of Miniluv, O'Brien & Big Brother. And what L. Ron Hubbard once said:
'What's true, is true for you'
My apologies. My bad. Getting my facts mixed up there. But at least I admit my errors, and thus alter my thinking in such. Now, if only she could admit her own errors. In everything she says, does, thinks & 'believes'?
And if she wouldn't be so dense - as in admitting she's wrong about everything she says/does/thinks/'believes' - then I wouldn't need to keep repeating myself. Certainly in other threads. As it wouldn't kill all other fundies to admit they're wrong in what they say, and what they base their mindsets on, neither.