[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

You're really living up to the "filled with hatred" part of this religion. I already know you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. At least Pim has some sanity left.

If you can't keep your anger under control, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

YiC,

Zech

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

So you like the convenient bits that still allows you to sin... From the outside looking in it's obvious you are just cherry picking at a barely understood philosophy to suit your own peccadillos and just doing as you please. How can this be right? God is there to tell you what to do (and what not to do) because you are a pathetic vessel of sin and lust from the moment you are born. Isn't it obvious?

Why not let Jesus save you from this dreadful fate? You are a pus filled maggot full of sin and lust and filth and Jesus is the cure. If only your parents hadn't been lax in your upbringing and had filled your head with the joy of knowing Jesus was there to save you from this misery. Instead they lied to you that you aren't a worthless piece of unsaved scum without our Lord... if that's not child abuse than I don't know what is!

You're really living up to the "filled with hatred" part of this religion. I already know you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. At least Pim has some sanity left.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Aha. Okay, I believe in the possibility of a God.

So in conclusion, I'm an agnostic atheist who happens to like parts of the teachings of Buddha.

Everyone happy?

So you like the convenient bits that still allows you to sin... From the outside looking in it's obvious you are just cherry picking at a barely understood philosophy to suit your own peccadillos and just doing as you please. How can this be right? God is there to tell you what to do (and what not to do) because you are a pathetic vessel of sin and lust from the moment you are born. Isn't it obvious?

Why not let Jesus save you from this dreadful fate? You are a pus filled maggot full of sin and lust and filth and Jesus is the cure. If only your parents hadn't been lax in your upbringing and had filled your head with the joy of knowing Jesus was there to save you from this misery. Instead they lied to you that you aren't a worthless piece of unsaved scum without our Lord... if that's not child abuse than I don't know what is!

[Didymus Much]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

...So in conclusion, I'm an agnostic atheist...

That wasn't so hard, was it?

... who happens to like parts of the teachings of Buddha...

If you mean karma but without reincarnation, or more simply put, what goes around comes around, that's part of the teachings of almost all religions worldwide. Identifying it with the Buddha (Buddha is a title, not a name) implies that you agree with the rest of it, and can confuse listeners.

...Everyone happy?

If I was, I wouldn't be here.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Aha. Okay, I believe in the possibility of a God.

So in conclusion, I'm an agnostic atheist who happens to like parts of the teachings of Buddha.

Everyone happy?

No, Jesus hates you.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

2 Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Close, but not quite, though most people misuse the word in exactly the same way (and I don't think this is the time or place for the "do people make the language or do dictionaries" argument).



It's not that that they don't know, it's that we can't know.



You're an atheist who either 1) still harbours doubt, 2) doesn't want to offend (yet still offends by being wishy-washy), 3) hasn't bothered thinking about it long enough to decide what you truly believe, or 4) is afraid of the term "atheist". So a weak atheist, where I'm a strong atheist.

At the same time, I'm still a bit agnostic, in that I hold that gods could exist because we cannot conclusively prove that they don't (like you cannot prove that there's not an invisible pink unicorn looking over my shoulder as I type this).

In the absence of proof, there is only belief, and due to mine, I live my life as if gods do not exist, and if you do the same, you're atheist.

Aha. Okay, I believe in the possibility of a God.

So in conclusion, I'm an agnostic atheist who happens to like parts of the teachings of Buddha.

Everyone happy?

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Karma is a stupid dot head load of old tosh that has no supporting evidence whatsoever other than wishful thinking by dot heads and wannabe dot heads. The more you think about it the more silly it gets.

Just stick with Jesus and you can't go wrong.

[Didymus Much]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

...An agnostic is someone who claims they don't know whether God (or a god) exists...

Close, but not quite, though most people misuse the word in exactly the same way (and I don't think this is the time or place for the "do people make the language or do dictionaries" argument).

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t

It's not that that they don't know, it's that we can't know.

...Not exactly an atheist, which is why I didn't answer atheist to your religion question...

You're an atheist who either 1) still harbours doubt, 2) doesn't want to offend (yet still offends by being wishy-washy), 3) hasn't bothered thinking about it long enough to decide what you truly believe, or 4) is afraid of the term "atheist". So a weak atheist, where I'm a strong atheist.

At the same time, I'm still a bit agnostic, in that I hold that gods could exist because we cannot conclusively prove that they don't (like you cannot prove that there's not an invisible pink unicorn looking over my shoulder as I type this).

In the absence of proof, there is only belief, and due to mine, I live my life as if gods do not exist, and if you do the same, you're atheist.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Generally is pretty key. It's a possibility and its applicable usually but not always. Also, I'm floating somewhere in between Buddhism and atheism, which is why I reject parts of it. Not exactly an atheist, which is why I didn't answer atheist to your religion question.

Not exactly an atheist? Do you believe in God or not?

An agnostic is someone who claims they don't know whether God (or a god) exists. If you don't know whether God exists, then you don't believe in Him. If you don't believe in God (or any god), you'd have to call yourself an atheist.

Of course, everyone knows deep down that God really exists.

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Well, you've got a problem here. The Connecticut shooting isn't an isolated incident. Things like this happen all the time. If a lot of people are suffering evil when they don't deserve it, how can karma be real?

Let me tell you why I think karma seems to be real to you sometimes. You've heard of the Golden Rule, right?

Lk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

This is a common-sense rule, and many other religions have borrowed it from Christianity. If you do good to others, generally they will be kind back to you. It seems as though you are getting what you deserve when they repay your kindness. Similarly, if you are unkind to others, they will tend to strike back at you.

Prov 30:33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.

This creates the illusion that bad things happen to bad people. But these are just general, common-sense rules. Virtually all religions accept these principles because they plagiarised them from Christianity. But sometimes things don't turn out as we expect.

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Most religions, except buddhism and maybe hinduism, accept this. Even a lot of atheists would accept these general common-sense rules. But these rules apply only to human interaction. What about acts of God, like natural disasters? We Christians can accept God sends disasters to punish people who deserve it. But how do you reconcile these events with karma?

People generally get what they deserve. But not always. Perhaps the reason you can't explain the deaths of those children is because karma is just an illusion. You are trying to turn something that is usually true into something that is always true (a universal truth). Don't you see you are denying reality?



Don't you think it's hypocritical to reject reincarnation but accept karma? If buddha's teaching is so seriously flawed that you have to reject large chunks of it, why do you accept it all? What use is it to you or anyone?



Why are you so keen on science, then? You've rejected much of buddhism on the basis that it is unscientific or illogical.

Generally is pretty key. It's a possibility and its applicable usually but not always. Also, I'm floating somewhere in between Buddhism and atheism, which is why I reject parts of it. Not exactly an atheist, which is why I didn't answer atheist to your religion question.

Natural disasters can be explained logically with science much better than with religion.

The observing thing. Again, see the scientific method. They're obviously not just observing.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

I never said they deserved to die. I think Buddha would've thought they deserved to die based only on our understanding of karma. Don't think he would've thought it based on what we know about his dislike of violence.

The children issue is different. I'm not sure yet how karma would apply to the children. I know that I don't think they deserved to get shot.

Well, you've got a problem here. The Connecticut shooting isn't an isolated incident. Things like this happen all the time. If a lot of people are suffering evil when they don't deserve it, how can karma be real?

Let me tell you why I think karma seems to be real to you sometimes. You've heard of the Golden Rule, right?

Lk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

This is a common-sense rule, and many other religions have borrowed it from Christianity. If you do good to others, generally they will be kind back to you. It seems as though you are getting what you deserve when they repay your kindness. Similarly, if you are unkind to others, they will tend to strike back at you.

Prov 30:33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.

This creates the illusion that bad things happen to bad people. But these are just general, common-sense rules. Virtually all religions accept these principles because they plagiarised them from Christianity. But sometimes things don't turn out as we expect.

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Most religions, except buddhism and maybe hinduism, accept this. Even a lot of atheists would accept these general common-sense rules. But these rules apply only to human interaction. What about acts of God, like natural disasters? We Christians can accept God sends disasters to punish people who deserve it. But how do you reconcile these events with karma?

People generally get what they deserve. But not always. Perhaps the reason you can't explain the deaths of those children is because karma is just an illusion. You are trying to turn something that is usually true into something that is always true (a universal truth). Don't you see you are denying reality?

Now the reincarnation thing. I believe death is the end of the road. So this whole karma in the next life thing isn't part of my beliefs. I think karma occurs up to the point that we die with death being possibly included in the cause and effect cycle.

Don't you think it's hypocritical to reject reincarnation but accept karma? If buddha's teaching is so seriously flawed that you have to reject large chunks of it, why do you accept it all? What use is it to you or anyone?

Buddha also teaches us not to believe based only on what we can observe.

Why are you so keen on science, then? You've rejected much of buddhism on the basis that it is unscientific or illogical.

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

You can read them for yourself, but:



Basically, tell us how karma makes sense without reincarnation. You yourself said that buddha would have believed those children massacred in Connecticut had done something wrong in a past life. If those children didn't have a past life, why did they deserve to die? If they didn't deserve to die, how is karma real?

I never said they deserved to die. I think Buddha would've thought they deserved to die based only on our understanding of karma. Don't think he would've thought it based on what we know about his dislike of violence.

Don't think either of us fully understand his thoughts on karma, gonna go read up on that.

Now the reincarnation thing. I believe death is the end of the road. So this whole karma in the next life thing isn't part of my beliefs. I think karma occurs up to the point that we die with death being possibly included in the cause and effect cycle.

The children issue is different. I'm not sure yet how karma would apply to the children. I know that I don't think they deserved to get shot.

Buddha also teaches us not to believe based only on what we can observe. This applies to you people, listen to it.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Thanks. Could you repeat them so I don't have to read everything?

You can read them for yourself, but:

I'd like to hear how you answer our questions about karma and reincarnation.

Basically, tell us how karma makes sense without reincarnation. You yourself said that buddha would have believed those children massacred in Connecticut had done something wrong in a past life. If those children didn't have a past life, why did they deserve to die? If they didn't deserve to die, how is karma real?

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Bump! I see you are on the forum, Alkalai. Welcome back. Would you like to continue our discussion? I'd like to hear how you answer our questions about karma and reincarnation.

Thanks. Could you repeat them so I don't have to read everything?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Bump! I see you are on the forum, Alkalai. Welcome back. Would you like to continue our discussion? I'd like to hear how you answer our questions about karma and reincarnation.