Religions > Atheism > David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position."
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"V" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2007 02:19:25 PM |
| Object: |
David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
David W. Barnes writes:
"Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At
least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position."
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
All I ask of you is the right to have my own opinions as well.
You remind me of a few other atheists in our group. They know
everything about everything and in the process become their own gods.
If you wish to get at the truth David, I suggest you digest this post.
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=470.0
May I be so bold to suggest you drop the pretense and lies that you
have been grasping onto for entire life and rebuild your life through
a foundation of truth and testing and regenerate yourself into a truth
based agnostic freethinker David?
Also a reprint of a post for you David...when you are tempted to self-
deify.
The Self Deified Atheist
BuddyThunder wrote:
"I've recently read a bunch of posts from the local theists of various
unsupportable beliefs calling atheists worshippers of this and
that.Darwin, science, money, rationalism, ourselves, and the senses
have all got the treatment, but non sequiturs like this simply make
the poster look hysterical and silly. For the theists among us: I am
an atheist. I worship nothing.... Incidentally, so do you!"
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
Thanks for your post BuddyThunder
I've noticed this phenomena many times at alt.atheism.
Atheists seem to think if they 'justify' something in their mind, then
the 'god of logic' will make it true in the real world.
Unfortunately they forget they are humans and not machines.
The nature of humans is that of imperfection - it is only the nature
of gods to be perfect.
As such, what is logical is not always practical when it comes to
humans.
And this fact is only magnified a hundred fold when the logic emanates
from the sick atheist's mind.
Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace. It takes no energy from me to pass something by and
leave it alone in peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to
pick something up to destroy it.
When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to call me a
liar and accuse me of hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato
when I pick it up to eat it.
Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.
If atheists can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger
fish to fry they will see a world of difference in their peace
practice.
The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
about by eating a potato.
The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of inner Peace
tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how they work, I
just know they are.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0
Being truth based instead of ego based, I have no need for
justification, I just seek the truth BuddyThunder.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=532.0
I look impartially at theists as well as atheists. If I did otherwise,
I could not be truth based, but would be ego based.
Do I seek to destroy atheists?
No, to do so would destroy me as well.
But, I do seek to have an opinion and comment on their actions.
And if what I say is false, then refute me, so I may adopt the truth
BuddyThunder.
But, the facts show the more I write, the less the atheists refute
BuddyThunder.
Atheists are a sad lot. They have no answers for me. You would think
if they cannot answer a proposition, they would look into it for
aspects of truth.
But honor dies where the interest lies BuddyThunder.
And with atheists their interest is in 'claiming they do not worship
anything under the sun'...well except worshiping themselves it seems.
But as atheists are ego based and not truth based BuddyThunder, they
are run by confused passions and deceit, as their ego's spin webs to
make their delusional and toxic thoughts appear as truth to them.
How could they live otherwise? The toxicity would kill them!
So, I am afraid I must disagree and rest on 'what is' true and not
what 'you wish' to be true BuddyThunder.
Now, you don't have to rationalize and justify yourself to me my
friend, you are free to do and think as you like BuddyThunder.
Thoreau once said when people invited him to dinner they put their
pride in how fancy and expensive a meal they could make. Whereas he
put his pride in how simple and inexpensive a meal he could make.
Where do you put your pride BuddyThunder?
Don't put your pride in saying 'I am an atheist and worship nothing'.
May I be so bold as to suggest you put your pride in being at peace
BuddyThunder.
Thoreau also said a thousand will strike at the branches of evil, but
only one will strike at the roots...be that one atheist that strikes
with truth BuddyThunder
But, no matter how you slice it, the fact remains, the confused, mind
manacled, spiritually sick atheist do worship many false gods
BuddyThunder.
Atheists worship their intellect, atheists make the test tube their
god, atheists worship hatred, atheists worship ignorance and
deceit...and atheists deify themselves BuddyThunder.
But humans do not make good gods BuddyThunder.
For once they become a god in their mind, they think they are perfect
and lose that part of being human that distinguishes them from all
else...they lose their conscience BuddyThunder.
And in the process, these self defied atheist gods loose all touch
with humanity BuddyThunder.
We can see this come to life with the quote below from Enkidu. This
same thinking that Enkidu uses to convince itself that it knows
everything about everything is what fuels the delusional atheists
mind.
This ego based foundation of godlike knowledge tells the atheist that
they know the unknowable.
Such atheists are only haggard shells of a human, withering away in
their hate based, delusional stew they call a life.
And as they live on a diet of hate and self righteous deceit - over
time, this poison festers and yields them a putrid, cesspool of a life
that manifests itself as the tragedy upon humanity known as the
dogmatic, mind manacled, spiritually sick atheist.
The atheist that only has a foundation of ego and hate will never find
peace BuddyThunder.
Despite Neil's claims to the contrary..this is 'universal law'
BuddyThunder.
We can see what happened recently at alt.athesim when we had a
'potential atheist convert' questioning their faith wondered onto our
board.
They could see 'atheism in action' for themselves with many
spiritually sick example members and their projection of this
spiritual sickness and self hate onto others.
They left in a few days offering...thanks...but no thanks.
These potential 'atheist converts' soon go back to their priest or
minister begging them to be admitted back into the flock...and who
could blame them!
For the 'God delusion' at least delivers a modicum of peace
Whereas the hate fueled, toxic, cesspool of a mind that atheists rely
on yields zero peace.
But such a mind is good for one thing BuddyThunder...it is good for
poisoning the individual and everyone around them.
Be honest with yourself BuddyThunder. Can poison, hatred and
destruction that the atheist offer ever yield you inner peace?
See:
http://www.churcharson.com/act_now/
I submit that you all drop the pretense and lies that you have been
grasping onto for entire life BuddyThunder and rebuild your life
through a foundation of truth and testing and regenerate yourself into
a truth based agnostic freethinker.
I've run into many of toxic atheists over the last 10 years
BuddyThunder. And can tell you without any doubt, that the atheist
that only has a foundation of ego, delusion and hate can and will
never find peace.
When this self deification occurs, the result is always the
same...they all self-destruct...the poison gets to them sooner or
later.
Lets look at one such self deified atheist Enkidu.
Now Enkidu knows everything about everything and no one can tell 'it'
a thing.
(BTW Enkidu, what is your gender so I may address you properly. I know
you are a shame based individual and are predisposed to hiding. But
offering your gender should be not be that big of a deal?)
Enkidu writes: "You (V) have nothing to say that we haven't heard
before, nothing to say that hasn't been say better by others, and
nothing to say that was worth hearing when said better by others. Your
pathetic little turds of truth are unoriginal*, irrational, ill-
conceived, ill-received, and devoid of value. But no, with all the
understanding of diarrhoeic bull's *****, you continue to spray *****
with abandon. " (condensed)
When you become this mind manacled as Enkidu, you make yourself the
god, you know all there is to know about everything under the sun and
forget you are interdependent with others as well as the spirit.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=613.0
Enkidu is free to have an opinion and speak for itself, but Enkidu
also speaks for 'all' of alt.atheism as well!
Who do I tell you I speak for?
For myself, my sig line I have used in the past state..."any opinion
expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion,
recommendation or belief of any group or organization."
This is the clue of self deification BuddyThunder.
When we think we 'control all' and 'can speak for' and 'know all'...we
think we are god.
Now, Enkidu is not alone.
There are a few more mind manacled atheist gods here... Raven,
Robibnikoff, Bilbo, Michael Gray, Kate, Floyd, Neil, Michelle,
Parsifa, Martin, Lucifer, Syd M, John #1782, Kate, Hollis,
Gail,...they are all good examples of this sickness of self
deification.
They pass their time by as perennial fiends of shame and hostility,
just more cowards behind their keyboards, provoking others through
their frantic efforts to bloat their ego by degrading people in their
misguided hopes of finding inner peace.
But peace eludes them at every step. The more they write, the sicker
they become.
Can it be any other way when we administer poison BuddyThunder?
It is just like drinking salt water to quench thirst - futile.
So are the efforts of these sad and hopeless individuals that think
maybe they can find inner peace by hurting and destroying others.
As James Allen tell us...
"Good thoughts and actions can never produce bad results. Bad thoughts
and actions can never produce good results. This is but saying that
nothing can come from corn but corn, nothing from nettles but nettles.
Men understand this law in the natural world, and work with it. But
few understand it in the mental and moral world...
and
"To think well of all, to be cheerful with all, to patiently learn to
find the good in all - such unselfish thoughts are the very portals of
heaven; and to dwell day by day in thoughts of peace toward every
creature will bring abounding peace to their possessor."
This doesn't mean we have to not be concerned with danger to our well
being by any particular group. but, it also reminds us we will never
be at peace by fostering hatred for another.
As Enkidu tells us above..all this is nothing original*....what I've
said nothing new - as Raven, Robibnikoff, Bilbo, Michael Gray, Kate,
Floyd, Neil, Michelle, Parsifa, Martin, Lucifer, Syd M, John #1782,
Enkidu, Kate, Hollis, Gail already knows everything about
everything.....
As I have told Raven and will tell the rest of you - we can change our
current life, a life that yields us nothing but pain and suffering,
into a new life of joy and inner peace. We transform ourselves by the
simple action of taking that first step in the opposite direction that
we have been headed in for so long...but I can't take that first step
for you my friend.
Also see:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/125b41aa8fd2b87b/cf400bdf88ba1701?lnk=gst&q=conundrum&rnum=7&hl=en#cf400bdf88ba1701
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=614.0
*For your information Enkidu, a portion of what I write is original,
so you may wish to amend your words somewhat. But do not get stuck
with 'a thing being original or not original,' just look at it for
practical application for its truth with yielding peace Enkidu.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
01 Sep 2007 05:53:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:19:25 -0700, V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes writes:
"Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At
least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position."
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
Let me ask you... If I was in school and was
asked something by the teacher and I just said,
"I don't know and I don't care to find out",
would you consider me a strong minded,
good student? Or would you consider me
a lazy slacker? Hello??? :)
Of course, there is the exception of those who
are honestly saying "I don't know, but I am
smart enough to know that if the Bible is true,
then it is the most important thing that I could
possibly know, since it involves my eternal state
and so, I am going to find out.".
That is certainly much better than, "I don't know
and if the Bible is true, even though it would
mean eternal damnation to blow it off, now that
I've heard the message, I'm not going to bother
to check it out.".
And in case you would argue that the Bible isn't
true, remember, that means taking a position
and if you did that right now, it would be out
of anger and laziness, not due to investigation
and that would make you even worse of a
person!
I'm really not trying to pick on you. I haven't
told you what to believe either. I'm just stating
what is true and what the logical and inevitable
outcome of these positions are.
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
01 Sep 2007 07:44:08 PM |
|
|
In article <9b9jd356bgildotr801vhcpo5qlvdm68ha@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:19:25 -0700, V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes writes:
"Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At
least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position."
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
That is hardly what agnostics say. What they do say is that they will
not claim to be certain about anything for which they have no reason to
claim certainty.
Which is quite different.
One of the things that agnostics find disagreeable in those who are less
careful about what they claim is what those careless people claim about
agnostics.
Agnostics take positions only when convinced those positions are backed
by evidence. Those who take positions for lesser justification, like
merely to avoid not taking them, are fools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
01 Sep 2007 08:25:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:44:08 -0600, Virgil
<virgil@comcast.net> wrote:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
That is hardly what agnostics say.
They don't? So they don't know and they don't
bother to find out, but yet, they're not saying
that they don't know and won't bother to find out?
What they do say is that they will not claim
to be certain about anything for which they
have no reason to claim certainty.
Which is quite different.
No, it isn't. It is the same thing. They don't have
a reason, because they don't bother to find out.
One of the things that agnostics find disagreeable
in those who are less careful about what they
claim is what those careless people claim about
agnostics.
Sounds to me like they're upset because other
people take a position, they don't and they
don't like it being pointed out.
Agnostics take positions only when convinced
those positions are backed by evidence.
I don't believe you. I do believe that's what
they claim. But what do they actually DO?
Nothing! See my first response. :)
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
01 Sep 2007 09:17:06 PM |
|
|
In article <7gijd3dbdoiud74j97qkvl49vqa0q2k5iq@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:44:08 -0600, Virgil
<virgil@comcast.net> wrote:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
That is hardly what agnostics say.
They don't? So they don't know and they don't
bother to find out, but yet, they're not saying
that they don't know and won't bother to find out?
There are some things which we do not know how to find out for certain,
and and know that we do not know how to find out.
So we do not bother with things we know we cannot find out for certain.
And we are not willing to take your word for those things, as you do not
know how to find out about them for certain either.
What they do say is that they will not claim
to be certain about anything for which they
have no reason to claim certainty.
Which is quite different.
No, it isn't. It is the same thing. They don't have
a reason, because they don't bother to find out.
That assumes, falsely, that one will necessarily succeed in finding out
anything that one tries to find out.
One of the things that agnostics find disagreeable
in those who are less careful about what they
claim is what those careless people claim about
agnostics.
Sounds to me like they're upset because other
people take a position, they don't and they
don't like it being pointed out.
We take the position that those who claim to know what they cannot prove
by objective evidence are taking a false position. And agnostics choose
to avoid such false positions.
Agnostics take positions only when convinced
those positions are backed by evidence.
I don't believe you.
Fair enough! I don't believe you either.
I do believe that's what
they claim. But what do they actually DO?
As almost all science is based on the agnostic principle of not claiming
to know what you do not know, they do most of science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
02 Sep 2007 04:09:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:25:50 -0400, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:44:08 -0600, Virgil
<virgil@comcast.net> wrote:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
That is hardly what agnostics say.
They don't?
No. Why are you pontificating about agnosticism if you don't know
what it is?
So they don't know and they don't
bother to find out
Do you know what's on the other side of a black hole? Are you
bothering to find out?
Have you stopped beating your wife? (Have you been cited yet for the
fire hazard all your straw is causing?)
What they do say is that they will not claim
to be certain about anything for which they
have no reason to claim certainty.
Which is quite different.
No, it isn't. It is the same thing.
Saying "I won't make pronouncements about things I have no evidence
for" has no relation to "and I won't find out".
They don't have a reason, because they don't bother to find out.
So what IS on the other side of a black hole? Surely, you HAVE
bothered to find out.
One of the things that agnostics find disagreeable
in those who are less careful about what they
claim is what those careless people claim about
agnostics.
Sounds to me like they're upset because other
people take a position, they don't and they
don't like it being pointed out.
Agnostics don't really care about people killing straw men.
Agnostics take positions only when convinced
those positions are backed by evidence.
I don't believe you.
And that matters because?
I do believe that's what they claim.
But you claim it's not.
But what do they actually DO?
Not make statements for which they don't have evidence.
Oh, that's what they claim they do.
Must really suck to be made to look like such an idiot in public,
Dave, but posting stupidity does make you look stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
02 Sep 2007 04:04:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:53:07 -0400, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:19:25 -0700, V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes writes:
"Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At
least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position."
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
Which hasn't anything to do with agnosticism, but you aren't going to
find out, are you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
01 Sep 2007 06:28:52 PM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 1:53 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:19:25 -0700, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
snip
Would you two lovebirds please keep this nonsense out of alt.atheism?
Thank you.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
02 Sep 2007 12:40:31 PM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 1:53?pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:19:25 -0700, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes writes:
"Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At
least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position."
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
Let me ask you... If I was in school and was
asked something by the teacher and I just said,
"I don't know and I don't care to find out",
would you consider me a strong minded,
good student? Or would you consider me
a lazy slacker? Hello??? :)
Of course, there is the exception of those who
are honestly saying "I don't know, but I am
smart enough to know that if the Bible is true,
then it is the most important thing that I could
possibly know, since it involves my eternal state
and so, I am going to find out.".
That is certainly much better than, "I don't know
and if the Bible is true, even though it would
mean eternal damnation to blow it off, now that
I've heard the message, I'm not going to bother
to check it out.".
And in case you would argue that the Bible isn't
true, remember, that means taking a position
and if you did that right now, it would be out
of anger and laziness, not due to investigation
and that would make you even worse of a
person!
I'm really not trying to pick on you. I haven't
told you what to believe either. I'm just stating
what is true and what the logical and inevitable
outcome of these positions are.
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
Sure there are some agnostics that have not bothered to check things
out. But I find many an agnostics has put in gobs of time. (myself
included) So you cannot come to that conclusion about all agnostics.
Too many unanswered questions in the universe.
v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
03 Sep 2007 05:58:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 05:40:31 -0700, V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
Let me ask you... If I was in school and was
asked something by the teacher and I just said,
"I don't know and I don't care to find out",
would you consider me a strong minded,
good student? Or would you consider me
a lazy slacker? Hello??? :)
Of course, there is the exception of those who
are honestly saying "I don't know, but I am
smart enough to know that if the Bible is true,
then it is the most important thing that I could
possibly know, since it involves my eternal state
and so, I am going to find out.".
That is certainly much better than, "I don't know
and if the Bible is true, even though it would
mean eternal damnation to blow it off, now that
I've heard the message, I'm not going to bother
to check it out.".
And in case you would argue that the Bible isn't
true, remember, that means taking a position
and if you did that right now, it would be out
of anger and laziness, not due to investigation
and that would make you even worse of a
person!
I'm really not trying to pick on you. I haven't
told you what to believe either. I'm just stating
what is true and what the logical and inevitable
outcome of these positions are.
Sure there are some agnostics that have not bothered to check things
out. But I find many an agnostics has put in gobs of time. (myself
included) So you cannot come to that conclusion about all agnostics.
I didn't. The following is quoted from what I said,
which is also quoted above.
PD: Of course, there is the exception of those who
are honestly saying "I don't know, but I am
smart enough to know that if the Bible is true,
then it is the most important thing that I could
possibly know, since it involves my eternal state
and so, I am going to find out.".
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
04 Sep 2007 12:15:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:58:36 -0400, Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't. The following is quoted from what I said,
which is also quoted above.
PD: Of course, there is the exception of those who
are honestly saying "I don't know, but I am
smart enough to know that if the Bible is true
The thought of a truly stupid person.
Why would anyone assume, a priori, that something with so much
objective evidence DISPROVING it could be true?
then it is the most important thing that I could
possibly know, since it involves my eternal state
Assumption without evidence that there IS an "eternal state" other
than nothingness.
and so, I am going to find out.".
Whether the claims in the Bible are true. Okay - those that make any
difference, and that CAN be proved, are false, so why even bother with
those that can't be proved? Because some mental midgets twist words
around to mean what they want them to mean?
You can't tell a Parisian what Paris is like Dave - ESPECIALLY if
you've never been there, so don't try to tell a person who's been dead
what death is like. Just hope (prayer is useless, since your god is
fiction) that you never die, because the one place Christians NEVER
get to is heaven.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
10 Sep 2007 12:13:30 AM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 1:53?pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:19:25 -0700, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes writes:
"Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At
least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position."
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
You are entitled yo your opinions David.
He's right though. It is a weak mind that says,
"I don't know and I'm not going to bother to
find out.".
Yes, this is true. some people may be agnsotcs cause of laziness.
Let me ask you... If I was in school and was
asked something by the teacher and I just said,
"I don't know and I don't care to find out",
would you consider me a strong minded,
good student? Or would you consider me
a lazy slacker? Hello??? :)
This presupposes that the question can be answered...which spiritual
questions cannot be many time.
Of course, there is the exception of those who
are honestly saying "I don't know, but I am
smart enough to know that if the Bible is true,
then it is the most important thing that I could
possibly know, since it involves my eternal state
and so, I am going to find out.".
Many proff's of religion are agnostics...they have put in tons of
time. Only the know it all atheist knows everything under the sun.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
That is certainly much better than, "I don't know
and if the Bible is true, even though it would
mean eternal damnation to blow it off, now that
I've heard the message, I'm not going to bother
to check it out.".
And in case you would argue that the Bible isn't
true, remember, that means taking a position
and if you did that right now, it would be out
of anger and laziness, not due to investigation
and that would make you even worse of a
person!
I'm really not trying to pick on you. I haven't
told you what to believe either. I'm just stating
what is true and what the logical and inevitable
outcome of these positions are.
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: David W. Barnes writes "Agnosticism is for those who can't really think on their own. At least the theist, for all his shortcomings, takes a position." |
10 Sep 2007 01:53:05 AM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 8:13 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
It rubs the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets the hose again.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/37/200px-Silencelamp7.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
