The Pope gives Atheists some credit

[Jollybear]

I agree with @Father Heathen's assessment that this earlier quote of yours:

could only have been made from a juvenile or immature frame of mind. You blatantly equated atheists with "stupid." If I did that substituting "Christian" you'd probably jump all over it and have yourself a hissy fit.

Your second sentence is no peach either. Calling yourself "smart" - one of the more sure signs that the person blathering on, making such claims simply isn't. And it's quite obvious that you think of yourself as both smart and not hypocritical. How about the bits within the scriptures of the Christian faith that proclaim you should "love your neighbor" and even "love your enemy?" Is calling a whole swath of people at once "stupid" loving in any way? Even if you don't consider atheists your "enemy," are they not, at least metaphorically, your neighbors? Considering the faith you supposedly practice, I see hypocrite written all over your words. Almost nothing but, being completely honest.

Apparently you dont understand what "love your naghbor" means from a bible standpoint.

Jesus said of some people that they wer "blind guides" so by your standard he was not loving either because of his hard words.



Also by your own standards, you arent loving me because you called me a hypocrite.

 

[Jollybear]

If there were valid evidence then it would be published, with many papers written by eminent people describing and evaluating that evidence. Could you please provide links to some of this evidence.

ID is an assumption based on confirmation bias, there is no evidence of ID.

The rest are in the mind, there is consensus that apparitions, near death and oob experiences exist as thought processes .There is no evidence that god did it.

And esp is woo, here is what berkeley university has to say on the subject
ESP: What can science say?


The faith is strong in you, so strong that you consider it evidence.

There is peer reviewed papers. But last time i presented those to some folks on another thread they wer handwaved off.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Apparently you dont understand what "love your naghbor" means from a bible standpoint.

Jesus said of some people that they wer "blind guides" so by your standard he was not loving either because of his hard words.

So, Jesus was in the habit of doing the equivalent of calling entire groups of people "stupid," without any further qualifications, is that what you're telling me? That's what you did.

Do you honestly think this emoji following your reply was warranted? Your answer was complete bull, and was just you trying to duck an obviously well-aimed bullet.

Also by your own standards, you arent loving me because you called me a hypocrite.

Just being honest here, I'm never going to appear "loving" to someone with your disposition, because my principles dictate that I must necessarily attempt to question your unsubstantiated beliefs into oblivion. Do I have a doctrine telling me I can't rip into people as I see fit? Nope. I don't. Who did you think you were talking to? A fellow Christian? Save it for the choir, friend. Your attempt at calling me "unloving" is completely misplaced. You may as well be speaking another language. I'm not obligated to "love" you. Am I? What do you think might obligate me? Unlike that I can surmise of you, I try my best not to make promises I don't intend to keep.

 

[Jollybear]

So, Jesus was in the habit of doing the equivalent of calling entire groups of people "stupid," without any further qualifications, is that what you're telling me? That's what you did.

No, im not saying atheists are stupid in all areas of there life. In fact, i did make that clear a few posts back. I am saying that atheists conclusion of no God, is stupid.

Also my point about Jesus was to show you that your point about harsh words is not warrented from a true christian standard.

Care to try again or eccept defeat?

Do you honestly think this emoji following your reply was warranted?

Very warrented, yes.

Your answer was complete bull, and was just you trying to duck an obviously well-aimed bullet.

Your bullet was not well aimed. I didnt have to duck or move, your a bad shot. My answer was just pointing it out.

Just being honest here, I'm never going to appear "loving" to someone with your disposition, because my principles dictate that I must necessarily attempt to question your unsubstantiated beliefs into oblivion. Do I have a doctrine telling me I can't rip into people as I see fit? Nope. I don't. Who did you think you were talking to? A fellow Christian? Save it for the choir, friend. Your attempt at calling me "unloving" is completely misplaced. You may as well be speaking another language. I'm not obligated to "love" you. Am I? What do you think might obligate me? Unlike that I can surmise of you, I try my best not to make promises I don't intend to keep.

Your still not understanding love from a true christian standard, despite my correction to you. What does that make you? It makes you stubborn.

Also my beliefs are substanciated. Deniers can barry there head in the sand all they wish. And they certainly have the freedom to do just that.

Also, i can call the atheistic conclusion stupid, because, IT IS.

 

[ChristineM]

There is peer reviewed papers. But last time i presented those to some folks on another thread they wer handwaved off.

Please provide links, lets look at the credibility of the evidence the science behind them and the "scientists" peer reviewing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, im not saying atheists are stupid in all areas of there life. In fact, i did make that clear a few posts back. I am saying that atheists conclusion of no God, is stupid.

Also my point about Jesus was to show you that your point about harsh words is not warrented from a true christian standard.

Care to try again or eccept defeat?

I'll ask again - do you think Jesus would have called any group of people "stupid?" I am asking about your exact phrasing specifically.

Bonus question: Do you think Jesus would have called what you said (and keep saying) correct Christian behavior? If so... then screw Jesus. Seriously. Screw 'im.

Very warrented, yes.

And I'm of the opinion that emojis are never warranted. They're like play-things for children.

Also, i can call the atheistic conclusion stupid, because, IT IS.

And I think your conclusions are immensely stupid - just "off the charts" levels of dumb. Where does this kind of talk get us, do you think?

 

[Jollybear]

I'll ask again - do you think Jesus would have called any group of people "stupid?" I am asking about your exact phrasing specifically.

Here are things Jesus did say > 18 Harsh and Divisive Things Jesus Said in the Scriptures

Things like "blind fools" and "hypocrites" and "brood of vipers" and "your like your father the devil".

Basically thats like calling them stupid if you ask me.

Also Jesus believed in the old testament torah and in the OT it says in Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”"

So, there ya have it.

Bonus question: Do you think Jesus would have called what you said (and keep saying) correct Christian behavior? If so... then screw Jesus. Seriously. Screw 'im.

Yes, i think Jesus would be fine with me phrasing atheism as a stupid conclusion.

Also why would you say of Jesus "screw im" when your own standard approuch toward me has been harsh as well? That makes YOU the real hypocrite because your saying me and Jesus cannot follow that standard of behavior, but you can.

So, why not say screw yourself too?

And I'm of the opinion that emojis are never warranted. They're like play-things for children.

And whats wrong with a adult having play fun with emojis? Because you think its immature? Well i think your so called maturity is nothing short of superficial maturity.

And I think your conclusions are immensely stupid - just "off the charts" levels of dumb. Where does this kind of talk get us, do you think?

Pretty much gets us nowhere. So, how should we approuch it you gather?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is peer reviewed papers. But last time i presented those to some folks on another thread they wer handwaved off.

No, there are not. Papers from bogus creationist sources do not count as peer review. The assignment was to find peer reviewed papers from well respected professional journals. You did not do that.

 

[Jollybear]

Please provide links, lets look at the credibility of the evidence the science behind them and the "scientists" peer reviewing.

Heres a bunch. Pick one.

Journal of Near-Death Studies

 

[Jollybear]

No, there are not. Papers from bogus creationist sources do not count as peer review. The assignment was to find peer reviewed papers from well respected professional journals. You did not do that.

I did. Stephen myers was peer reviewed in a respected journal. But, even he makes a fantastic point by saying the mainstream is severely biased against the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heres a bunch. Pick one.

Journal of Near-Death Studies

That looks as if it fails the requirement of journals being well respected. What is the journals impact factor?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. Stephen myers was peer reviewed in a respected journal. But, even he makes a fantastic point by saying the mainstream is severely biased against the evidence.

No, he was not. At best Myers had an opinion piece in a well respected scientific journal, or else an actual article on a separate topic. There are some creationists that can do real science at times. But you have not posted any papers that dealt with "design".

 

[Jollybear]

That looks as if it fails the requirement of journals being well respected. What is the journals impact factor?

What do you mean? Its a peer reviewed journal.

 

[Jollybear]

No, he was not. At best Myers had an opinion piece in a well respected scientific journal, or else an actual article on a separate topic. There are some creationists that can do real science at times. But you have not posted any papers that dealt with "design".

Thats handwaving away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean? Its a peer reviewed journal.

I see that you did not learn from our previous discussion. A journal needs to do more than to claim it is peer reviewed to be of any value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats handwaving away.

No, it is explaining your errors to you. You failed to find any peer reviewed articles from A well respected professional journal that supported your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heres a bunch. Pick one.

Journal of Near-Death Studies

I tried to get an impact factor of that journal and for the first time ever I got nothing. That seems to indicate that no scientists take it seriously at all. Here is a link to an impact factor should site, see if you have any luck:

JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR LIST

 

[ChristineM]

Heres a bunch. Pick one.

Journal of Near-Death Studies

Science? Nope.

Confirmation bias? Yes.

How does one study a nde? It cannot be repeated, it cannot be recorded, it cannot be observed. All anyone can do is ask the subject his opinion and interpret it whichever way suites your bias.

Let me tell you of experiences my father had with ndes.

He was mugged, hit across the head with a half brick and wound up in coma for a month. His medical records showed he died 3 times abd returned to life. He told the stories of his death.

First time he said the only reason returned is because god is a lousy poker player.

Second time he went to the light, there was no one home so he he came back.

Third time there was a lion king guarding the gates to prevent him entering.


Now the reality,
Mom, my hubby and i were by his side whiling away the time playing cards when the heart monitor let out a horrible alarm. The staff brought him back. Even in the coma he was aware of his family paying cards. This was the last thing he remembered before his heart stopped but his brain was still working

Next time was early morning, no one around. The staff bid their work wonderfully.

Third time i was with him on my own, once again the staff brought him back.

When he recovered we discussed his ndes and were stumped by the lion until i wore the same tee shirt had worn that day in hospital.
Like this one

Spoiler: Lion king NDE

Once again, brain activity.

His condition, treatment and accounts of his memories during the coma have been published in a real medical journal, one read by neurosurgeons.


Edit I forgot to mention, the second time he died the light was dim, not bright as in many accounts of operating table ndes. Why? The nightlight in the ward was dim.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So, why not say screw yourself too?

Because I did not start out by calling an entire group of people stupid, that's why. Sure, I picked on your position - but only after you picked on mine, and continued to do so post after post. If you put out into the world that you think these sorts of verbal attacks are "okay," then do not be surprised when the tactic is turned back on you. As I see it, you started this roasting war, and now you're trying to complain about getting roasted. That's what also makes you a hypocrite. Your attempt at painting my words to you as some sort of problem when you're the one who started out using derogation in the first place. I originally called you hypocritical for going against the tenets of your faith with blatant insults (at least Jesus' were clever, well-worded, and tempered by their presentation in honorable discourse). So I wasn't even complaining about your insults from a position of "you shouldn't say that." You want to have an insult battle, I'm game - I see nothing wrong with it, and I know you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a single word that would sting me even the slightest bit.

And whats wrong with a adult having play fun with emojis? Because you think its immature? Well i think your so called maturity is nothing short of superficial maturity.

The emojis make it appear that you think you are so correct, so sure, and so knowledgeable that you feel confident in taunting your debate opponent. That's what those kinds of emojis are when used in the kind of situation you used it in. A taunt. A way to make it seem like you've gotten one up. I'm not trying to "one up" you. I'm trying to spread an appeal to reason and rationality. Emojis aren't this. They are a cheap parlor trick. They're garbage. This is my opinion, surely - but I at least have more to back up my opinion than your disingenuous ploy to play your use of emojis off as you just "having fun."

Pretty much gets us nowhere. So, how should we approach it you gather?

Possibly by not starting a conversation hurling insults. It makes you appear as if you are just looking to start an argument - to be controversial. In my opinion it belies a mind unsure of the solidarity of its own position. To have to start out with an insult rather than the important points that you believe positively support your position. It makes it appear as if you have no important points. That you are standing on entirely shaky ground, and can only hope to discredit the other person's position. Why not, instead, describe why you feel that the Pope wasn't giving atheism any credit with his statements (I honestly don't believe he was, and have stated my reasoning already in this thread)? Or, still more honest and reasonable than just calling people "stupid", why not describe why you feel the atheist position doesn't deserve any credit?

The ultimate point being, these types of statements lead people to build a certain model in their mind of what constitutes @Jollybear. My mind is currently applying to that model that the person behind that user-handle is weak in their religious/spiritual position, is extremely quick to judgment and insult and likes to back those things up with scripture even though the majority of the other members of his creed that I have encountered would denounce such behavior outright, and has much to learn about what is and is not important.

Not that I am saying my opinion matters to anyone but myself, mind you. But if you find that many others end up being of the same mind as I am about you, then perhaps you can start to see it as constructive criticism.

 

[Jollybear]

Because I did not start out by calling an entire group of people stupid, that's why.

Do i gotta correct you again? I made it clear that i dont believe atheists are stupid in all areas of there life. But, in this one tinie tiny area of there life, Gods existence, there conclusion IS stupid.

Sure, I picked on your position - but only after you picked on mine, and continued to do so post after post.

Ok, well, thats fine, but the problem is that your telling me and Jesus cannot follow a certain standard that is ok for you to follow. Yet, you call me the hypocrite? This makes you DOUBLE hypocrite. I dont think you see it though. I on the otherhand see it so clearly. It sticks out like a sore thump.

If you put out into the world that you think these sorts of verbal attacks are "okay," then do not be surprised when the tactic is turned back on you.

Its not surprising that you think im stupid for concluding God exists. Whats surprising is you think im a hypocrite for saying atheism is stupid. It makes me think you dont even know what hypocrisy is.

As I see it, you started this roasting war, and now you're trying to complain about getting roasted.

How can i complaining about getting roasted when i did not get roasted?

That's what also makes you a hypocrite. Your attempt at painting my words to you as some sort of problem when you're the one who started out using derogation in the first place.

Your understanding of reality here is pretty twisted. Reality is, you have the freedom to say my view is stupid, you also have the freedom to say im a hypocrite. But, i also have the freedom to point out where and why your wrong on that. And then, your free to go into denial.

I originally called you hypocritical for going against the tenets of your faith with blatant insults

And i corrected you on that and ill do it again to no avail. I did not go against my faith by calling atheism stupid. I did not go against my faith by saying you wer being the real hypocrite. I did not go against my faith by thinking the pope was indirectly saying stupidity is better then hypocrisy. And why didnt i go against my faith by saying these things? Because its not a part of my faith to NOT say those things, lol.

(at least Jesus' were clever, well-worded, and tempered by their presentation in honorable discourse).

Really now? Tempered you say? So Jesus saying things like "blind fools" and "hypocrites" and "brood of vipers" and "your like your father the devil", thats tempered? Also Jesus believing Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” thats also tempered too, yea, yea?

I do agree with you though that what Jesus said was clever. I absolutely agree, it was very clever. I just dont understand why you think it was clever being that your suppose to disagree with his views?

So I wasn't even complaining about your insults from a position of "you shouldn't say that." You want to have an insult battle, I'm game - I see nothing wrong with it, and I know you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a single word that would sting me even the slightest bit.

The thing is, its not the use of words thats the problem, its the wrong application of them. And so, obviously wer not both srupid in our views and wer not both being hypocrites here. One of us is and one of us isnt. And it isnt me. So, that leaves you.

The emojis make it appear that you think you are so correct, so sure, and so knowledgeable that you feel confident in taunting your debate opponent. That's what those kinds of emojis are when used in the kind of situation you used it in. A taunt. A way to make it seem like you've gotten one up. I'm not trying to "one up" you. I'm trying to spread an appeal to reason and rationality. Emojis aren't this. They are a cheap parlor trick. They're garbage. This is my opinion, surely - but I at least have more to back up my opinion than your disingenuous ploy to play your use of emojis off as you just "having fun."

Yes, i certainly feel confident and very sure. Yes, i gladly admit that. And im also having fun with the emojis.

Also, apeal to rationality means you need to accept logic, which you will not if i give it to you.

Possibly by not starting a conversation hurling insults. It makes you appear as if you are just looking to start an argument - to be controversial. In my opinion it belies a mind unsure of the solidarity of its own position.

No, im not unsure, i am sure.

To have to start out with an insult rather than the important points that you believe positively support your position. It makes it appear as if you have no important points. That you are standing on entirely shaky ground, and can only hope to discredit the other person's position. Why not, instead, describe why you feel that the Pope wasn't giving atheism any credit with his statements (I honestly don't believe he was, and have stated my reasoning already in this thread)? Or, still more honest and reasonable than just calling people "stupid", why not describe why you feel the atheist position doesn't deserve any credit?

Ok, let me put it like this, if the pope is a theist, which, as fare as we are aware, he is, lol, then he definitely then is NOT giving any credit to atheism. He is then saying its BETTER to be a stupid, but none hypocritical atheist rather then a theist who happens to be a hypocrite.

NOW, if the pope is NOT saying this, but instead is truly giving atheism credit, then in essence the pope would be indirectly confessing that he himself is an atheist, pretending to be a theist. Which then to criticise hypocritical theists for being hypicrites would then thus be quite appalling since this in itself would be him being a hypicrite since hed be pretending to be a theist.

So, take your pick, the pope is calling atheism stupid, but better then hypocrisy within christianity, or the pope is saying hes a atheist and is projecting his hypocrisy on other theists.

My mind is currently applying to that model that the person behind that user-handle is weak in their religious/spiritual position, is extremely quick to judgment and insult and likes to back those things up with scripture even though the majority of the other members of his creed that I have encountered would denounce such behavior outright, and has much to learn about what is and is not important.

Other religious members views may or may not be my religious views and whether they are or are not is NOT important, whats important is MY views.

Not that I am saying my opinion matters to anyone but myself, mind you. But if you find that many others end up being of the same mind as I am about you, then perhaps you can start to see it as constructive criticism.

Well, first off, we dont know if everyone has the same mind as you about me.

Second off, even if they did, its not important if there wrong.

Thirdly, i agree that probably most atheists here would agree with your mind about me.

Fourthly, i would disagree that most theists would agree.

Fifth, ultimately we dont know unless we got a vote. But even then, its not important due to the second reason.

Now, do you accept defeat yet? Nooooooo