Persecuted Christians In America!

[BubberMiley]

So they have enough brain power to know this with certainty?

Yes, we have just enough brain power to know there are things we can't know. That does not, however, prevent me from mocking ideas I think are silly.

Edited June 8, 2012 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, we have just enough brain power to know there are things we can't know.

That's in direct contradiction to your earlier claim: I believe that people don't have enough data or brain power to know anything with certainty

[GostHacked]

Really? You've been pointing out that 'people who say that there is no God is the only truth is no different from those who say their religious beliefs are the only truth?'

I was agreeing with the following statement that you made and I quoted you in another reply. The thing is WE AGREE and you are STILL trying to make an argument out of it. Why?

View PostAmerican Woman, on 07 June 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Ummm.... I more than "admit it," it's been my stance all along that people have their own beliefs, but no one has the answer - that includes atheists who think that their "logical" minds are "the only truth." There is no God. EOS. That is no different from people of faith who preach that their beliefs are the One Truth.

But to atheists, its not a belief, it's the LACK of belief. Which is different.

I have to say, I've totally missed that - but since you've been saying it "for a few years," I'm sure you won't have any problem directing me to at least one such post. Thank you.

You are an adult right? Go do a search. I am not babysitting you and holding your hand through that process.

I don't think so. You're comments about what I supposedly think/believe prove otherwise - as you claim you "rarely get that from religious people" re: not thinking their beliefs are the only truth, while you don't see that there are atheists of the same mindset. You have tried on more than one occasion to get someone to say that Christianity is the only truth, yet you didn't get any such response - as you claim you "rarely get that from religious people." I'd say you see the world the way you think it is.

Sorry, but there's more than one way to develop "narrow vision." Perhaps because you were never exposed to any religion you weren't as equipped to "figure things out for yourself" as someone else who was raised with religion where it was openly discussed, and said person was encouraged to give it critical thought and figure things out for themselves. The idea that you think anyone who was raised with religion have parents force beliefs on them is pretty narrow minded. You might want to think about that a bit.

I prefer figuring things out for myself than having someone else tell me what the truth is. In the end I may eventually come around and believe in a god. But for now, that is not in the cards.

There's no "could be" about it. I've never said anything to indicate that I think/believe what you claim I do. You, on the other hand, have made it quite clear that you think your beliefs are the one true belief.

My beliefs work for me. Your beliefs work for you. In the end both of us could be wrong as to what the real TRUTH is. That is in a nutshell the stance of agnostics, which I prefer to label myself, as opposed to athiest. The agnostic approach, is that the answer and the truth are essentially unknowable.

Again. Your reference to unicorns and spaghetti monsters makes that quite clear. On the other hand, I have never once made ignorant responses about atheist beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism, a parody religion.[1][2] The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005, protesting the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.[3] In the letter, Henderson parodied the concept of intelligent design by professing belief in a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs. Henderson further called for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to be allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and evolution.[4]

Attitudes, yes. And well deserved, I might add. Beliefs, no. You cannot say the same. Your ignorant comment to me that I should "worship you" instead of "worshiping Jesus" was so ignorant on so many levels - and it speaks for itself.

You don't even know sarcasm when it stares you in the face.

Furthermore, claims such as "If you believe in god, then you believe in the devil. " is totally narrow-minded because YOU are dictating what others believe; you don't listen to them if you declare what they believe.

It's called the YING and the YANG. Or even like the one Newtonian Law For every action, there is a direct and opposite reaction. The bible talks about Satan (aka Lucifer, aka The Devil), so it's not my claim. The claim is right there in the bible!

How can one believe in a god, if there is no Devil? Which would mean there are possibly two gods in Christianity.

Umm. Yeah, you have. The fact that you refer to belief in God as "irrational" while believing there is no God is "logic" and "reasoning," that you refer to "spaghetti monsters" and compare God to "unicorns," that you call God "imaginary" - are all pretty clear evidence that you believe that 'there is no god' is the truth.

Having faith does not require logic. "Needs" "more" "quotes".

You don't seem to get the fact that I don't care to discuss any of this.

Your replies seem to indicate otherwise.

The fact that you think belief in God and belief in Unicorns is comparable tells me without question just how ignorant you are about belief in God. Unicorns are tangible - they aren't a feeling, something requiring faith and/or emotions - and that's all the time I will devote to that ignorant comment - except to point out that it's more evidence that you believe your beliefs are the one true belief.

I can no more prove God exists as I can prove Unicorns exist. Or like Kimmy had mentioned, leprechauns. It simply cannot be done.

Science can't prove that "love" exists. Love isn't tangible. Not everyone experiences it, feels it, believes in it. Does that mean that love doesn't exist?

Emotions have always been hard to describe using science. It's possible that one day it might, and it might not. That may come in time with understanding the human brain. It's an organ that is quite complex and sophisticated. We are just scratching the surface there when it comes to science.

Simply put, science cannot "prove" everything, and that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Correct, science cannot prove everything. But as time goes on, and knowledge is acquired, there is less room for this God to hide in. But in those empty spaces where science has not filled in the blanks, more often than not, we hear 'god did it'. Where the agnostics and science says 'we don't know yet'.

Logic to me, means that one does not jump to conclusions based on faith (aka god did it) when trying to be logical about it (the answer is unknown at this time).

It's almost like you have a persecution complex. You and I agree on some points AW, maybe we should leave it at that.

[BubberMiley]

That's in direct contradiction to your earlier claim: I believe that people don't have enough data or brain power to know anything with certainty

Sorry. I thought the context made my point obvious. I'll clarify: I believe that people don't have enough data or brain power to know anything to do with the formation of the universe with certainty. We do have enough brain power to know other things with certainty, like, for instance, the fact that we exist or the fact that the Maple Leafs will never make the playoffs again.

Edited June 8, 2012 by BubberMiley

[BubberMiley]

double post

Edited June 8, 2012 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

It's almost like you have a persecution complex.

Good God. It's not about me - it's about "you people," and you cannot see it. You cannot see the point I'm making. I'll repeat it one. more. time. It's about your attitude, and how you are just the flip side of the people you criticize. You are peas in a pod. It's attitude that I've been referring to - not beliefs. ATTITUDE. The fact that you think this is about me, and that I have a "persecution complex" helps me understand why your "reality" is so warped - and why you see conspiracy theories everywhere. It's such an ignorant comment that I can't do anything but :rolleyes:

There's just no point in even discussing it if you can't even begin to see it - so I'll just keep pointing it out - and laughing at the irony.

Edited June 8, 2012 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

It's attitude that I've been referring to - not beliefs. ATTITUDE.

Sounds to me like you have a contemptuous attitude to those with a contemptuous attitude.

[Guest American Woman]

Sounds to me like you have a contemptuous attitude to those with a contemptuous attitude.

Nope. Just pointing out that they are the same as those they criticize - as I find humor in the irony. Nothing contemptuous about that, eh?

[cybercoma]

I believe that people don't have enough data or brain power to know anything with certainty. I believe this is the one truth.

Cogito ergo sum.

[cybercoma]

Good God. It's not about me - it's about "you people," and you cannot see it. You cannot see the point I'm making. I'll repeat it one. more. time. It's about your attitude, and how you are just the flip side of the people you criticize. You are peas in a pod. It's attitude that I've been referring to - not beliefs. ATTITUDE. The fact that you think this is about me, and that I have a "persecution complex" helps me understand why your "reality" is so warped - and why you see conspiracy theories everywhere. It's such an ignorant comment that I can't do anything but :rolleyes:

There's just no point in even discussing it if you can't even begin to see it - so I'll just keep pointing it out - and laughing at the irony.

You're not very self-aware. It's pretty amusing.

[BubberMiley]

Cogito ergo sum.

Right. We know for sure that we exist and that the Leafs suck.

[BubberMiley]

Nothing contemptuous about that, eh?

Aren't rolly eyes supposed to indicate contempt?

[cybercoma]

Right. We know for sure that we exist and that the Leafs suck.

I know that water's wet.

[BubberMiley]

I know that water's wet.

Unless you just think it's wet because your body is telling you that.

[jbg]

Whereas AW is simply too good for this fallen world...or at least for this website, chocked to the brim with her intellectual inferiors.

I know that water's wet.

Unless you just think it's wet because your body is telling you that.

I have no intention of reading closely but has this thread become entirely inane? Edited June 9, 2012 by jbg

[BubberMiley]

I have no intention of reading closely but has this thread become entirely inane?

You think Descartes was inane?

[kimmy]

You think Descartes was inane?

I'd say that for the past few pages, this thread has been more DesCartman than DesCartes...

-k

[Canuckistani]

Right. We know for sure that we exist

Correction. We know that we think we exist.

[GostHacked]

Good God. It's not about me - it's about "you people," and you cannot see it. You cannot see the point I'm making. I'll repeat it one. more. time. It's about your attitude, and how you are just the flip side of the people you criticize. You are peas in a pod. It's attitude that I've been referring to - not beliefs. ATTITUDE. The fact that you think this is about me, and that I have a "persecution complex" helps me understand why your "reality" is so warped - and why you see conspiracy theories everywhere. It's such an ignorant comment that I can't do anything but :rolleyes:

There's just no point in even discussing it if you can't even begin to see it - so I'll just keep pointing it out - and laughing at the irony.

I don't think you understand what irony really is. Because I said we do agree on some points so maybe we should leave it at that. I thought I would get some agreement from you and we can both carry on. But the real irony is that you continue to prove the 'persecution complex' by continuing to address my posts in which you say you don't want to address my posts. This would be more frustrating for you than me. Which goes back to the point about the lack or complete absence of any kind of logical thought processes.

But if that puts me in the same pod as Kimmy, that works for me.

[kimmy]

Ummmm. I haven't "headbutted" anyone about their religious beliefs - and this thread consists of non-believers "head butting" betsy's beliefs - and attacking her for her beliefs

Only to the extent that she believes Christians are the targets of injustice... only to the extent that she agrees with the claims of Christian victimhood that this thread has ridiculed since day 1.

- and making fun of Christians

Only those who are claiming they're the targets of religious persecution. Persecution is very real for Christians in the Middle East and Africa... but a laughable claim for those in the United States and (as you pointed out) Canada. And it's those claims that this thread has discussed from the start.

This isn't about Christian spiritual beliefs, it's about much more earthly claims. This is about those who call for beating or killing gays then howl that their religious beliefs are being attacked. And those who cry that their religious freedom is being oppressed because they're not allowed to make people sit through a Christian prayer at the start of council meetings. And those who claimed that Christianity was under attack when they made them take down the 12-foot tall cross that dumb-ass Marines nailed to the all-faiths chapel at a base in Afghanistan. And those who campaigned to be President on the promise of "ending Obama's war on religion". And on and on.

These are things that can be discussed without any claim of knowledge of the origin of the universe or what lies beyond.

-k

[cybercoma]

I'd say that for the past few pages, this thread has been more DesCartman than DesCartes...

-k

Yes, but Cartman is an authoritah.

[bush_cheney2004]

...And those who claimed that Christianity was under attack when they made them take down the 12-foot tall cross that dumb-ass Marines nailed to the all-faiths chapel at a base in Afghanistan. And those who campaigned to be President on the promise of "ending Obama's war on religion". And on and on.

...and those who feel that government funding for Piss Christ "art" should be discouraged, and those who claim that giving free (state financed) abortion services to their minor children without parental consent is wrong, or those who think gender selection by abortion is wrong, and those who think U.S. First Amendment rights include religious freedom...and on and on.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think you understand what irony really is.

Oh, I understand perfectly.

Because I said we do agree on some points so maybe we should leave it at that. I thought I would get some agreement from you and we can both carry on. But the real irony is that you continue to prove the 'persecution complex' by continuing to address my posts in which you say you don't want to address my posts.

Oh. My. God. How is having no interest in addressing the points you brought up regarding religious beliefs a "persecution complex??" Good Lord. No wonder you think Christians have a persecution complex. You have no idea what it is. You also clearly have no idea as to the POINT I've been making - which is all that I'm interested in discussing. For the last time - I am not interested in discussing religion/people's religious beliefs - other than in the context I've clearly stated: re: attitude.

This would be more frustrating for you than me. Which goes back to the point about the lack or complete absence of any kind of logical thought processes.

What's more frustrating for me is your complete inability to address my actual POINT.

But if that puts me in the same pod as Kimmy, that works for me.

The fact that you think I am comparing you to kimmy without a doubt confirms that you just don't get it.

[Guest American Woman]

Only to the extent that she believes Christians are the targets of injustice... only to the extent that she agrees with the claims of Christian victimhood that this thread has ridiculed since day 1.

You do realize that "injustice" and "persecution" are two different things, right? It's YOU putting the "persecution" label on all of it. Furthermore, if you don't recognize that there is a different "PC standard" applied to Christians than there is to Muslims, you must have blinders on. But here's the thing - recognizing that isn't saying that Christians are persecuted.

Only those who are claiming they're the targets of religious persecution. Persecution is very real for Christians in the Middle East and Africa... but a laughable claim for those in the United States and (as you pointed out) Canada. And it's those claims that this thread has discussed from the start.

The treatment of Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa is part of the 'complaints' that Christians have. I posted an example of that very thing. But Christians in the U.S. and Canada are also going to speak out about what they see as different 'PC standards' in their own countries. Again. That doesn't mean they think they are persecuted. What I'm getting from your judgment is that no one better dare mention the different PC standards, one best quietly just accept it, or they are claiming that they are persecuted.

This isn't about Christian spiritual beliefs, it's about much more earthly claims.

I realize it's not about spiritual beliefs - which is why I have no desire to discuss spiritual beliefs. It's about attitude.

This is about those who call for beating or killing gays then howl that their religious beliefs are being attacked.

Just what Christians in the U.S. are calling for the beating or killing of gays? Seriously. You think there is a faction of Christians in the U.S. calling for the killing of gays??

And those who cry that their religious freedom is being oppressed because they're not allowed to make people sit through a Christian prayer at the start of council meetings. And those who claimed that Christianity was under attack when they made them take down the 12-foot tall cross that dumb-ass Marines nailed to the all-faiths chapel at a base in Afghanistan. And those who campaigned to be President on the promise of "ending Obama's war on religion". And on and on.

Yes, of course. The number of Christians doing this is staggering. While of course there are no atheists "crying" about being subjected to "Christmas" symbols/everything else they "cry" about. Taking into account the number of Christians and the number of atheists, I would say there are no more Christians "crying" about being "persecuted" than there are atheists. Those who pick just one to criticize and throw about accusations are all cut from the same cloth. But just out of curiosity, what "dumb ass Marines" are you referring to? And just how many candidates campaigned on the promise of ending Obama's war on religion? - And why do you care?

These are things that can be discussed without any claim of knowledge of the origin of the universe or what lies beyond.

I couldn't agree more. I have no desire to discuss beliefs; just attitude - which is exactly what I've been doing (and will continue to do).

Edited June 9, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

How is having no interest in addressing the points you brought up regarding religious beliefs a "persecution complex??"

...

What's more frustrating for me is your complete inability to address my actual POINT.

This is really just too much. You criticize someone for not addressing your points, right after you say that you have no interest in addressing his points.