What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

[Windwalker]

That's your opinion and mine, but those who claim to be God-directed often see it differently. They believe themselves to be directed by the preaching of a prophet, as set down in some scripture.

They'll deny that they are following themselves. They're following God.

I still don't see why you single out God as the problem, when they obey the voice of political leaders who send them to war under the name of the flag far more nowadays. It's not God that the issue, it's using God as a flag. Why aren't you anti-flag?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How do we go from your statement that the 9/11 terrorists were directed by God (which I don't believe any of those involved ever claimed God came up with the plan and gave them marching orders), to "no one" ever claiming God directed them to kill someone? I'm not talking about schizophrenics, I'm talking about 9/11.

I dunno. I'm pretty perplexed by whatever it is you're trying to say to me.

The 911 guys all died. But you seem to be claiming that you know exactly what they thought about God (not) directing them. How do you know what the 911 attackers thought about all this?

As for schizophrenics, I have no clue how they might fit into this argument. You're suggesting that we can somehow tell the difference between schizos mistakenly thinking they hear God vs. sane people correctly thinking they hear God?

Yeah... I'm lost. Your position and argument elude me. But you're welcome to make a clear statement of how you think we differ.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I still don't see why you single out God as the problem, when they obey the voice of political leaders who send them to war under the name of the flag far more nowadays. It's not God that the issue, it's using God as a flag. Why aren't you anti-flag?

Why do you assume that I could not possibly be anti-flag?

Why do you seem angry, rather than calmly asking me questions about my positions?

Maybe you're suffering some sensitivity about God? You feel I'm attacking God, maybe? is that it?

 

[Windwalker]

I dunno. I'm pretty perplexed by whatever it is you're trying to say to me.

The 911 guys all died. But you seem to be claiming that you know exactly what they thought about God (not) directing them. How do you know what the 911 attackers thought about all this?

Rarely do I not include words in my original statements that heads off such a misunderstanding like this happening, but nonetheless. You will note I said, "which I don't believe any of those involved ever claimed God came up with the plan and gave them marching orders." "Any of those involved", extends beyond those who died, as obviously we can't know their thoughts, other than memos perhaps. "Any of those involved", would include the mastermind behind it, and any other of Al Qaeda who were part of the plot. Did any of them say God directed them? No. Not to my knowledge.

As for schizophrenics, I have no clue how they might fit into this argument. You're suggesting that we can somehow tell the difference between schizos mistakenly thinking they hear God vs. sane people correctly thinking they hear God?

People who get "direct" marching orders from God, generally are schizophrenics, and they typical are not some organized terrorist body, except maybe those rare ones that resemble what we saw in the movie Fight Club. The reason I brought up schizophrenics is because you made this "are you saying no one ever has God tell them to do things?" counter argument. Sure, but they don't pertain to 9/11. That was my point. Using that as a counter to my point is like comparing apples to orangutans.

Why do you assume that I could not possibly be anti-flag?

I don't assume your not. But you should open your eyes and see that the "God" is bad argument because terrorists blow **** up in the name of God, is really not about God, but about God as a Flag. What you should argue is not that God sucks, but that abusing the name of God sucks.

Why do you seem angry, rather than calmly asking me questions about my positions?

You've declared your thoughts. I'm challenging them intelligently, not angrily. Although, I do admit to being a bit wearing of unconsidered rhetoric.

Maybe you're suffering some sensitivity about God? You feel I'm attacking God, maybe? is that it?

How I view God is not threatened by this rhetoric. I just wish people could ramp up their understanding of what really the problem is, such as manipulating people under the name of some flag, rather than mistakenly attacking the symbol. It's a call to focus on the actual source, rather than saying the symbol is to blame.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Rarely do I not include words in my original statements that heads off such a misunderstanding like this happening, but nonetheless.

Huh? I've got to say that your writing strikes me as peculiarly off-center, oblique. I find myself wishing that you would simply come straight out and say whatever it is that you believe.

Maybe you think that you are being clear, but I've read a bunch of language and thought in my life, and yours doesn't seem at all standard to me. So give me a minute to adjust myself to you.

You will note I said, "which I don't believe any of those involved ever claimed God came up with the plan and gave them marching orders." "Any of those involved", extends beyond those who died, as obviously we can't know their thoughts, other than memos perhaps. "Any of those involved", would include the mastermind behind it, and any other of Al Qaeda who were part of the plot. Did any of them say God directed them? No. Not to my knowledge.

You said, "The point remains, they [911 attackers] did not take direction from God. They may have believed God sanctioned their actions, but...."

Now you change that and say that we don't have any record of 'any of those involved' being quoted as saying that God directed them.

I can only react to what you actually say. If you move the goalposts on me, I have to then react to that. So far as this new goalpost position of yours, I have no idea if 'any of those involved' have been recorded as claiming they were directed by God. Yet I'm still confident opining that the 911 attackers believed themselves to be directed by God.

People who get "direct" marching orders from God, generally are schizophrenics....

Really? How do you know that? You don't believe in prophets?

The reason I brought up schizophrenics is because you made this "are you saying no one ever has God tell them to do things?" counter argument. Sure, but they don't pertain to 9/11. That was my point. Using that as a counter to my point is like comparing apples to orangutans.

Ah. Now I see it. You are telling me that since the 911 attackers were not directed by God (which you know because you know), then ... then....

Nope. Nope, I guess I really don't see it. No good idea what you are trying to say.

I don't assume your not. But you should open your eyes and see that the "God" is bad argument because terrorists blow **** up in the name of God, is really not about God, but about God as a Flag. What you should argue is not that God sucks, but that abusing the name of God sucks.

Yikes. You have absolutely no idea what I believe, do you. Goodness.

You know, some debaters -- the best debaters -- sit back and study the other guy's positions. They ask clarifying questions. Only when they are sure of the other guy's general stance do they begin to counterargue.

I recommend that technique to you.

I argue that God sucks, do I?

Too busy setting me straight to notice my religious affiliation, eh.

You've declared your thoughts. I'm challenging them intelligently, not angrily.

Nah. You are just confused. You think that I've declared my thoughts and that my thoughts are simplistic (God sucks) and wrong. But you're just flailing about -- reacting to some message which you are composing yourself, I think, and trying to insert into my outlook.

How I view God is not threatened by this rhetoric. I just wish people could ramp up their understanding of what really the problem is, such as manipulating people under the name of some flag, rather than mistakenly attacking the symbol. It's a call to focus on the actual source, rather than saying the symbol is to blame.

Forgive me, but to my eyes, you're acting super-sensitive about God.

As if He needs your help or protection.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Forgive me, but to my eyes, you're acting super-sensitive about God.

As if He needs your help or protection.

This is extremely common but it's not his God he's defending, it's his own faith.

Most peoples faith is very weak and only supported by a childhood indoctrination that they as adults know isn't actually true, this becomes problematic when others reinforce their own doubts. To compensate they usually overstate their position.

 

[nash8]

Shouldn't everyone?

LOL, no. That's admitting that you suck at life, to each their own though.

 

[LuisDantas]

@nash8:

Please elaborate.

@windwalker:

A concept that is easily abused may be fairly criticized for that. That includes God and flags.

 

[nash8]

Please elaborate.

How would you like me to elaborate?

 

[LuisDantas]

How come accepting limitations is not a good thing?

 

[nash8]

How come accepting limitations is not a good thing?

How is it a good thing?

 

[LuisDantas]

Because it leads to realistic choices and avoids unnecessary delusions and frustrations, for one.

It also helps in building moral character.

 

[nash8]

Because it leads to realistic choices and avoids unnecessary delusions and frustrations, for one.

What is a realistic choice? Playing professional sports? Being a famous musician? Being an actor? Those choices are are realistic for someone, what makes it realistic for one person and not realistic for another. I would personally argue absolute belief in self. But I would agree that not having a back up plan would be pretty dumb, but that is intellgence in my opinion, and not belief in self.

I disagree, I literally believe I can do anything. It's just that I also logically deduce what would be the things that would be more prevelant to me focusing my energy on. Do I wan't to spend my entire life learning to levitate, then I've spent the whole of my life learning to levitate and I've missed out on so many other experiences in order to pursue this goal.

The delusion and frusturation is based on the decision that one pursuit is inherently better than the the sum of many others, and all of the times one becomes upset when they don't achieve their goal, not neccessarily in the belief that one has the ability to achieve anything if one puts their mind to it.

Then from a Buddhist perspective, you have that the desire to do anything is the cause of suffering, and on that note I would agree, but I personally don't think that is the best path. I personally follow a Buddhist/Toaist balance as being the best path. Doing the thing without the desire to do it, is when you're really getting somewhere in my opinion, or contrarily not becoming upset when one doesn't achieve the one believes himself capable of doing.

It also helps in building moral character.

This aspect I don't understand at all, I don't understand how disbelief in limited existence promotes moral character? Morallity is subjective after all no? So dependent upon what one viewed as moral would be dependent on whether or not acceptance of a limited existence would be moral in my opinion.

I don't neccesarily agree that absolute belief in one's self and one's abilities is inherently immoral or moral, the choice of what one decides to do with that ultimate belief in self is what becomes moral in any sense of the word.

 

[LuisDantas]

Morality is very objective indeed. And belief in some sort of connection to the "infinite" has often shown to be corruptive or at least unhealthy.

 

[Koldo]

What is a realistic choice? Playing professional sports? Being a famous musician? Being an actor? Those choices are are realistic for someone, what makes it realistic for one person and not realistic for another. I would personally argue absolute belief in self. But I would agree that not having a back up plan would be pretty dumb, but that is intellgence in my opinion, and not belief in self.

Before you accept your limitations, you have to understand them.
This part of your post clearly shows you don't understand the limitations Luis was talking about.

I disagree, I literally believe I can do anything. It's just that I also logically deduce what would be the things that would be more prevelant to me focusing my energy on. Do I wan't to spend my entire life learning to levitate, then I've spent the whole of my life learning to levitate and I've missed out on so many other experiences in order to pursue this goal.

The delusion and frusturation is based on the decision that one pursuit is inherently better than the the sum of many others, and all of the times one becomes upset when they don't achieve their goal, not neccessarily in the belief that one has the ability to achieve anything if one puts their mind to it.

Then from a Buddhist perspective, you have that the desire to do anything is the cause of suffering, and on that note I would agree, but I personally don't think that is the best path. I personally follow a Buddhist/Toaist balance as being the best path. Doing the thing without the desire to do it, is when you're really getting somewhere in my opinion, or contrarily not becoming upset when one doesn't achieve the one believes himself capable of doing.

Do you really believe that you can do anything you wish? Seriously?
Then, at this very moment, turn the day into night.

Oh, wait, you can't do everything you wish when time is a constraint, right?

 

[Windwalker]

Huh? I've got to say that your writing strikes me as peculiarly off-center, oblique. I find myself wishing that you would simply come straight out and say whatever it is that you believe.

Maybe you think that you are being clear, but I've read a bunch of language and thought in my life, and yours doesn't seem at all standard to me. So give me a minute to adjust myself to you.

You said, "The point remains, they [911 attackers] did not take direction from God. They may have believed God sanctioned their actions, but...."

Now you change that and say that we don't have any record of 'any of those involved' being quoted as saying that God directed them.

I can only react to what you actually say. If you move the goalposts on me, I have to then react to that. So far as this new goalpost position of yours, I have no idea if 'any of those involved' have been recorded as claiming they were directed by God. Yet I'm still confident opining that the 911 attackers believed themselves to be directed by God.

Really? How do you know that? You don't believe in prophets?

Ah. Now I see it. You are telling me that since the 911 attackers were not directed by God (which you know because you know), then ... then....

Nope. Nope, I guess I really don't see it. No good idea what you are trying to say.

Yikes. You have absolutely no idea what I believe, do you. Goodness.

You know, some debaters -- the best debaters -- sit back and study the other guy's positions. They ask clarifying questions. Only when they are sure of the other guy's general stance do they begin to counterargue.

I recommend that technique to you.

I argue that God sucks, do I?

Too busy setting me straight to notice my religious affiliation, eh.

Nah. You are just confused. You think that I've declared my thoughts and that my thoughts are simplistic (God sucks) and wrong. But you're just flailing about -- reacting to some message which you are composing yourself, I think, and trying to insert into my outlook.

Forgive me, but to my eyes, you're acting super-sensitive about God.

As if He needs your help or protection.

I watched you use this same tactic as you devolved into discussing Legion's personality with him in the debate he was annihilating you in discussing the historical Jesus, rather than staying on topic after you could no longer defend your thin position. You decided to make it about his personal flaws and get him to respond to that, rather than face his dismantling of your arguments. Behold: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...i-vs-ambiguousguy-non-historical-jesus-3.html

(See this sad approach of yours in the above link beginning in post 26, saying such things as "I think it's why you speak so nastily to people, while I don't. Maybe it's just our characters, but maybe it's because you're frustrated that others oppose your certainty, while I have no certainty to defend.", blah, blah, blah...)

The same thing is happening here on an even simpler topic which was you making a false statement, and then trying to wiggle and worm your way out of it, rather than just gracefully bowing out. I wont get sucked into your attempts to safe face through this sort of drivel.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The same thing is happening here on an even simpler topic which was you making a false statement, and then trying to wiggle and worm your way out of it, rather than just gracefully bowing out. I wont get sucked into your attempts to safe face through this sort of drivel.

I see. Well, thanks for trying, I guess.

 

[Knight of Albion]

What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

One like this?
[youtube]ShSDaB_9Rek[/youtube]
Atheist reunites with her dead Grandmother - NDE - YouTube

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Most peoples faith is very weak and only supported by a childhood indoctrination that they as adults know isn't actually true, this becomes problematic when others reinforce their own doubts. To compensate they usually overstate their position.

My God loves nothing more than to be challenged, disrespected, ridiculed, abused, made the butt of bad God jokes.

So long as He's the center of attention, He's happy.

 

[nash8]

Before you accept your limitations, you have to understand them.
This part of your post clearly shows you don't understand the limitations Luis was talking about.

NO, I clearly understand the limitations he was speaking of (and I just had deja-vu writing this interestingly enough), I'm just saying that if a 5' 7" white guy can be starter in the NBA, why should I accept limitations?

The other aspect of this, is the risk reward scenario. If I demote all of my time to becoming a professional basketball player and it doesn't pan out then I'm screwed for all instructive purposes, if I have no marketable skills to fall back on, and I wouldn't be content becoming a monk somewhere.

But just so, what limitations was Luis speaking of?

Do you really believe that you can do anything you wish? Seriously?
Then, at this very moment, turn the day into night.

Oh, wait, you can't do everything you wish when time is a constraint, right?

Who says I wish to turn day into night? Why would I demote all of my time and energy to do something totally pointless, other than for the simple joy of spiting you? That's not very logical to me.

Secondly, turning day into night would also not change time. Time, from a human perspective, is the amount of decay that something experiences, or how something moves in comparison to another object. It's a comparitave relationship, not an independent variable. It would simply be a matter of eliminating sunlight from your perspective. If the sun was not out, and you had no clock to measure by, how could you say that something is not "night"? How many "nights" does Alaska have during the winter? Contralily, how many "nights" does California have during the same time? Day and night is a matter of perspective, I can change day to night from my perspective at any point in time.

I watched you use this same tactic as you devolved into discussing Legion's personality with him in the debate he was annihilating you in discussing the historical Jesus, rather than staying on topic after you could no longer defend your thin position. You decided to make it about his personal flaws and get him to respond to that, rather than face his dismantling of your arguments. Behold: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...i-vs-ambiguousguy-non-historical-jesus-3.html

(See this sad approach of yours in the above link beginning in post 26, saying such things as "I think it's why you speak so nastily to people, while I don't. Maybe it's just our characters, but maybe it's because you're frustrated that others oppose your certainty, while I have no certainty to defend.", blah, blah, blah...)

The same thing is happening here on an even simpler topic which was you making a false statement, and then trying to wiggle and worm your way out of it, rather than just gracefully bowing out. I wont get sucked into your attempts to safe face through this sort of drivel.

LMFAO, I was wondering anyone else saw that destruction.

My God loves nothing more than to be challenged, disrespected, ridiculed, abused, made the butt of bad God jokes.

So long as He's the center of attention, He's happy.

LOL, you can delight in your abilities to influence other's thoughts as much as you would like. At the end of the day... You still got SERIOUSLY owned. For me, your tactics are an blatant admittance of your ego's inadequcies, and it trying to compensate by demonstrating it's "worth" in ways that only further it's sense of inadequacy. Vicious cycles are called as such for a reason. :yes: