Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Atheists are Searching for Self Definition. Even if it is More About Who They Are Against. That's why the Religion Forum attracts them. Also, they have more mixed feelings about religion and Christianity than they admit to. Hello Conflicted Atheists.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 760 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:22:15 PM PST
Ariex says:
Alan says: (RE :Ariex, "I am a mob inciting myself""

Alan says: "I like it, what a wonderful concept."

Ariex: Well, I have to give credit to Kenyon. She? (no testosterone) first noticed my secret identity.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:26:17 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:12 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:29:13 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:12 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:32:18 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:12 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:33:34 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:12 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:36:39 PM PST
Ariex says:
Kenyon says: "Dude, are you serious? You are consistently making criticisms that are true about your own statements, but not of your interlocutors. I think that objects must fall up, where you live. That's the only rational explanation for your addled reasoning."

Ariex: Let's clear that up, shall we? Offer some cut-pastes from my posts that you think are addled or logically flawed and let's see if you can do more than make accusations of addled reasoning. I've already done that with some of your statements. Perhaps we should start with the one in the post I respond to here:

Here is my statement that you find so disturbing: ">>>Ariex: Your objection depends on the assumption that you can define G-d via what man imagines G-d to be like. In other words, begging the question upon which you base your whole argument. If a g-d exists, we have no way to reliably describe attributes or any other aspect of it.<<<

Show me where I am wrong. Remember, we can go back to the posts before this one where YOU were the source of the "space and time" claim about G-d.

>>>>In reply to your post on Dec 31, 2012 8:44:00 AM PST

Kenyon says: "Nonsense. You argued that G-d, Whose existence isn't predicated on the rules of time and space, would need to be caused,"<<<

Ariex: In your own post, you said, "Whose existence isn't predicated on the rules of time and space". YOUR WORDS, not mine. (in fact, none of the words you responded to were mine) How do you know G-d's existence is not predicated on the "rules of space and time"????? HOW, since there's no way for anyone to determine this rationally? It is derived from FAITH in something one has been taught to believe, or something a "Philosopher of theology" has pulled from thin air.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:38:22 PM PST
Ariex says:
Kenyon says: "OK, you are clearly having trouble remembering your own posts. I'm smiling politely, and slowly backing away."

Ariex: Good choice, since I'm not having any trouble at all GOING BACK TO THE POST ITSELF and cut/pasting in what I said and what you said in response. Try it. That way you won't keep digging yourself deeper.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:41:46 PM PST
Ariex says:
MMX says: "I'll run a counter-example with micro-fiction. :)

"When Alexandra walked into the bar, Love whispered in her ear, "Check out that guy in the grey suit! And just when she turned to look towards him, Love whispered in *his* ear, "Who is that beautiful woman?" Upon seeing its mission successful, Love smiled at itself, and sought new people to bring together."

Ariex: Weird, MMX, just plain weird. And, as usual, having no resemblance to a rational argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:45:24 PM PST
Ariex says:
MMX says: "Please consult my reply to ErikR, in which Love whispers in peoples' ears."

Ariex: Your example merely redefines "love" into an independent agent with intent, something not even implied in the definition of the word, "love". The fact that you don't appear to see the obvious problem with mutilating meanings that way says a lot about your ability to "reason".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:49:34 PM PST
Ariex: Your example merely redefines "love" into an independent agent with intent, something not even implied in the definition of the word, "love". The fact that you don't appear to see the obvious problem with mutilating meanings that way says a lot about your ability to "reason".

Rachel: MMX is outdoing himself with fallacies. This one is reification. From wikipedia: "Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "fighting for justice" is taken literally, justice would be reified."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:49:52 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:53:26 PM PST
Ariex says:
MMX says: "For me, the safest indicator of "progress" is "increased standard of living" - which is connected to acquisition of material wealth and more leisure time. (You'll notice that neither "religion" nor "lack of religion" has a significant causal affect on either variable.)"

Ariex: Interesting. Your indicator is wealth. Mine is increased awareness of the basic human rights of all people, and, in another area, the increased understanding of how our universe works. Organized religion has usually been a hindrance to both, particularly the Christian religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:55:57 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:57:03 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 4:58:11 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 5:10:57 PM PST
No, they become more polite. They do not become nicer.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 5:24:36 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:38:23 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 5:39:57 PM PST
ErikR says:
"The same could be said for your Biblical verses. :)"

There's the rub isn't it? Bible verses are literal, metaphoric, poetic, etc. based on the whims or pre-conceived ideas of the interpreter.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 5:41:50 PM PST
Oh, I've known people who could be most polite while stabbing you in the back. I wouldn't call them nicer.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 5:42:59 PM PST
ErikR says:
"In which case, when Atheists ask for "objective, empirical evidence that God exists", then they're guilty of reifying God. :)"

In that case this is an admission that God has no objective existence.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 5:53:15 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 5:54:28 PM PST
There's a huge difference between speaking your mind and voting your conscience, and speaking dogma and voting with your religious community. One requires you to think for yourself, and the other doesn't require any thinking at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 6:06:40 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 6:07:55 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 6:30:01 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1223 19 days ago
A paradox? 149 14 minutes ago
Christians who believe in Jesus 357 14 minutes ago
Science II 3281 14 minutes ago
The Atheist Make-Believe Psychology 9407 14 minutes ago
Atheists - Muslims ... not much difference there 227 19 minutes ago
Why, believer or not, you seek a Monotheistic God. 12 22 minutes ago
The case for New Atheist "rationality"? 161 33 minutes ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 162 44 minutes ago
Has Islam become infected with a sickness? 1341 45 minutes ago
There is no such thing as "free will" 597 1 hour ago
Debunking the Non-Religion of Atheism 246 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  60
Total posts:  760
Initial post:  Dec 29, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 2, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions