|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
It's my natural humility - although I do know it all, I think I know nothing - save that atheists are also part of God ...
I wonder why no one has responded yet to my last post on the "Alternative Challenges to Evolutionary Bullshyte" thread ...
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=59990&start=6435
I think that scriptures need to be taken literally - except when they're obviously allegorical, but changing circumstances and the natural tendency toward corruption in this world requires that they be periodically updated by devoted souls in a way that relays the spirit of the original message for modern understanding.
Atheists tend to be either too materially absorbed or too disgusted by religious cheaters (and many are misled by those who envy - or can't stand the idea of - a personal God...) |
Know what I think? I think you are a raving, blithering, fingers-in-your-arsehole moron. |
And do you know what I think, Stevie? You are violating the TOS.
This post will be moved shortly. |
Violating the TOS? That's a bit harsh. We're having a debate here! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Enrico Palazzo Mod Team


Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
It's my natural humility - although I do know it all, I think I know nothing - save that atheists are also part of God ...
I wonder why no one has responded yet to my last post on the "Alternative Challenges to Evolutionary Bullshyte" thread ...
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=59990&start=6435
I think that scriptures need to be taken literally - except when they're obviously allegorical, but changing circumstances and the natural tendency toward corruption in this world requires that they be periodically updated by devoted souls in a way that relays the spirit of the original message for modern understanding.
Atheists tend to be either too materially absorbed or too disgusted by religious cheaters (and many are misled by those who envy - or can't stand the idea of - a personal God...) |
Know what I think? I think you are a raving, blithering, fingers-in-your-arsehole moron. |
And do you know what I think, Stevie? You are violating the TOS.
This post will be moved shortly. |
Violating the TOS? That's a bit harsh. We're having a debate here! |
Stevie, read the TOS. Calling people arseholes is going a bit too far.
Thanks...
P.S. I got a report... And even if I didn't, it's still a violation. Try to be civil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
It's my natural humility - although I do know it all, I think I know nothing - save that atheists are also part of God ...
I wonder why no one has responded yet to my last post on the "Alternative Challenges to Evolutionary Bullshyte" thread ...
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=59990&start=6435
I think that scriptures need to be taken literally - except when they're obviously allegorical, but changing circumstances and the natural tendency toward corruption in this world requires that they be periodically updated by devoted souls in a way that relays the spirit of the original message for modern understanding.
Atheists tend to be either too materially absorbed or too disgusted by religious cheaters (and many are misled by those who envy - or can't stand the idea of - a personal God...) |
Know what I think? I think you are a raving, blithering, fingers-in-your-arsehole moron. |
And do you know what I think, Stevie? You are violating the TOS.
This post will be moved shortly. |
Violating the TOS? That's a bit harsh. We're having a debate here! |
Stevie, read the TOS. Calling people arseholes is going a bit too far.
Thanks...
P.S. I got a report... And even if I didn't, it's still a violation. Try to be civil. |
I didn't call him an arsehole, I called him a moron. Anyway, I've edited it now. I'll try to be more civil in future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Now if Rteacher would apologize for saying retarded kids are part of karmic justice.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's Karma, so many people think Rteacher's faith is a load of crock that he has to believe in it so blindly and unquestioningly. In order to balance all the negative absolute original personality Vedic knowledge or whatever. It's certainly a complex faith, I'll give it that much.
Sorry, I'm just flaming now, I can't be rational anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He wasn't rational to begin with.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thought that was advancevariation, made me jump a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| He wasn't rational to begin with. |
yeah kinda like this huh
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007 Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
There are atheists on this board. But as BB's article suggests, there is already as schism, even on this board. There are atheists, and there are a few self-described "anti-theists." Here is my observation (not be be confused as criticism).
An atheist doesn't believe in God, very simply perhaps because the concept hasn't been satisfactorily proven to him/her through tangible, empirical, and objective means. Period. There is no additional expenditure of energy required to be in this condition.
An "anti-theist" on the other hand, it one who like the fervent Bible Christian, expends a considerable amount of time and energy developing, strengthening, educating, and training themselves to continue being atheists. Just like the Christian will become proficient in the Bible, the authoritative works of the early Church Fathers, treatises by the fathers of the Reformation and training in apologetics, fervent atheists (or"anti-theists") likewise study hard to be proficient in "atheist apologetics" with respective authoritative works in the field, such as Dawkins, Russell, Hitchens and Mackie.
A fervent Christian tries to warn people of the evils of runaway secularism, and sometimes attempts to "save" them.
A fervent atheist tries to warn people about the evils of religion, especially organized religion, but sometimes any type of spiritual belief; it's a similar attempt to also try to "save" people.
I am not trying to rile up either side or anything, I am merely describing my observation of some folks on this board. |
Your conceptions of atheism and antitheism are wrong. I routinely describe myself as an atheist because it's just easier, but really I'm an anti-theist (and a Biblical/Koranic God atheist). Men like Berkeley and Einstein had great arguments supporting some kind of transcendentalism which I support (it's not really theism though either). I'm against a specific kind of theism, the normal kind, the monotheists we meet in the West. In that sense, I'm as anti-theistic as I am anti-racist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Your conceptions of atheism and antitheism are wrong. I routinely describe myself as an atheist because it's just easier, but really I'm an anti-theist (and a Biblical/Koranic God atheist). |
So my conceptions of both A.) atheism and B.) anti-theism are both wrong, but rather than explain why I am wrong on both counts it seems like you have inadvertently contradicted this statement by confirming you are both A.) and B.) as described. Okay. I will wait for a better explanation explaining why I am wrong.
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Men like Berkeley and Einstein had great arguments supporting some kind of transcendentalism which I support (it's not really theism though either). |
Okay, so as an atheist/anti-theist you do support some type of personal and meaningful spiritual activity (or so it seems to me anyways; I could be "wrong" again though. It's interesting nonetheless). But what do you mean by "not really theism"? It is or it isn't? Curious I am. (Both fellows you mentioned were, curiously enough, theists; but that's neither here nor there.)
I am not looking to start a debate or anything, (especially not on this issue for obvious reasons) but I would like to be more enlightened as to what the right conceptions are according to you.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll pass |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello, Mikey Boy!
A believer might use deathbed conversions as an argument that God exists,
but really, it amounts to nothing more than an argumentum ad baculum.
Hello, Kuros!
There is a scientific explanation for those near-death experiences.
Children don't know very many people who have passed away, so when they have near-death experiences, they imagine themselves visiting their peers.
That casts serious doubt on the notion that the soul is in Heaven during those experiences.
Hello, Merdurix!
Religion made a mess out of me, and I would love to prevent the same thing happening to other people.
I am writing a manuscript exposing the deceptive arguments advanced by the the Creationist crusader Duane Gish.
So there is no doubt that I am what you would call an anti-theist.
Hello, Quack Addict!
I don't know if secular thinking can help a widow left with three children in diapers.
But evolutionary psychology has helped me understand both myself and others.
And it has done the job far better than religion.
Hello, ED206!
I'm not sure that's right.
I don't have the source on this, but I heard somewhere that 40% of scientists believe in God.
Hello, Mises!
The Quaker church and the Unitarian church are two groups which seem to be for people who are fed up with dogmatic religion but who can't quite make a clean break.
Hello, Stevie B!
The God-exists party can't prove their case and neither can the God-doesn't-exist party.
That's why I pronounce a plague o' both of your houses.
Hello, Kirby Magnus!
It is in our instincts to want to be part of a tribe.
That is why people have organized crusading armies not only for religious and philosophical beliefs, but for 'most any interest.
That is why barbershop quartet singers have adopted "Keep the Whole World Singing" as their theme song.
Hello, Omkara!
I remember when it was only "one nation, indivisible".
I remember the teacher reading to us a memo announcing that from that point on, we were to add the words "under God."
McCarthy and his gang pushed to have those words added because they were under the conviction that a person could'nt be a loyal American without believing in God, and that any person who didn't believe in God was a threat to national security and should be locked up.
And Christians wonder why people can't see that they are loving people.
Hello, Traxxe!
I was taught to believe that Christians act out of genuine benevolence, with no thought of reward or punishment.
So I never could understand why we were told about Heaven and Hell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Omkara

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tomato Wrote:"Hello, Omkara!
I remember when it was only "one nation, indivisible".
I remember the teacher reading to us a memo announcing that from that point on, we were to add the words "under God."
McCarthy and his gang pushed to have those words added because they were under the conviction that a person could'nt be a loyal American without believing in God, and that any person who didn't believe in God was a threat to national security and should be locked up.
And Christians wonder why people can't see that they are loving people. "
Many people don't understand why I would have such a problem with that addition to the pledge. They do not see the danger or the insidious political symbolic meaning in it.
"Under God." Under who's interpretation? Under what objective criterion? That law would follow from a fiction? And who would question this is unpatriotic?
Jefferson would roll over in is grave! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="tomato"]
Hello, Stevie B!
The God-exists party can't prove their case and neither can the God-doesn't-exist party.
That's why I pronounce a plague o' both of your houses.
/quote]
Hello Tomato.
Well you have fun smugging away up there on your fence, T. The God-doesn't-exist party doesn't NEED to prove their case as the onus of proof is on the God-exists party. By your rationale, nothing could ever be proven.
Last edited by Stevie_B on Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|