Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand exactly what you are talking about. I have no problem with that kind of swearing.
But trust me, the kind of bitter and angry swearing I hear from people getting angry at religion is NOT the same thing.
Don't kid yourselves people.
the thing I disagree with ozzy is lumping all us non believers together. we all do not follow the same dogma of anti-religion nor were we indoctrinated into personal relevance and "springboarding science" is what decides how we teach to how the universe works.
most of us believe we are part of a larger more complex system and most of us feel freedom of religion shows the emotional and intellectual maturity of a society.
And i can fill that claim with foul and suggestive language.
it would be just as true.
Well, actually yes, but we don't know that either.
If all we had about the battle of Waterloo was a Book compiled of all the other Books on the battle written 150 -200 years after the event and first memoirs (lost or suppressed) not extant, then the splendid words: "The guard dies, it does not surrender' would probably be canonical today (in France, it is) because we would not know that it was invented by a journalist and we would no more know that Cambronne denied that he ever said it, and that he did not die, but surrendered. No more than we could know that Jesus' body was removed from Joseph's tomb and taken to Galilee (if that was the case) and the explanation of the empty tomb was never given in the account that was allowed to survive.
It is significant that any early accounts have been lost or suppressed, because a Jesus anything like the Gospel Jesus ought to have got into Josephus at least, and that a faux -account had to be inserted means that Josephus, inexplicably, failed to mention the fellow or what he said about him had to be suppressed. It is also possible that he was too insignificant to get any attention, but I reckon the Temple business (unless it is totally made -up) had to be bigger and more violent than depicted, as Pilate and his entire complement of troops would be on guard during any festival. Jesus could never have got away with it, otherwise.
Yes, there's more to this story than meets the eye, because the church saw to it that we never got to see it.
the thing I disagree with ozzy is lumping all us non believers together. we all do not follow the same dogma of anti-religion nor were we indoctrinated into personal relevance and "springboarding science" is what decides how we teach to how the universe works.
most of us believe we are part of a larger more complex system and most of us feel freedom of religion shows the emotional and intellectual maturity of a society.
And i can fill that claim with foul and suggestive language.
it would be just as true.
Just don't show it to my mom.
Obviously most atheists are not this way.
I guess I should use the label "Anti-Theist" to be more specific. Or is it Anti-Religion?
I understand exactly what you are talking about. I have no problem with that kind of swearing.
But trust me, the kind of bitter and angry swearing I hear from people getting angry at religion is NOT the same thing.
Don't kid yourselves people.
Presumably, you're talking about this forum.
Examples of this kind of "bitter and angry" swearing?
Examples of this kind of "bitter and angry" swearing?
Not people on this forum. But some of the anti-theist people I've seen clips of. I'm sure all of the heroes of the people on this forum. George Carlin is mild, if anything. But then he usually had something constructive to say, which differentiates him from the rest.
Well, actually yes, but we don't know that either.
My point is that it seems to me that accuracy in reporting or attribution is much less important than whether or not what was written has any application or value for whomever is reading it.
My point is that it seems to me that accuracy in reporting or attribution is much less important than whether or not what was written has any application or value for whomever is reading it.
And my point is actually similar, but let me explain.
I consider myself a Buddhist, but wisdom is where I find it. If I find wisdom in the New Testament, that's fine. I've yet to find much in the Old Testament. If I find wisdom in some part of Hinduism, that's fine. If I find wisdom in something Donald Trump says (highly unlikely), that's fine, too.
I don't need the bible. I don't need to be a christian.
And my point is actually similar, but let me explain.
I consider myself a Buddhist, but wisdom is where I find it. If I find wisdom in the New Testament, that's fine. I've yet to find much in the Old Testament. If I find wisdom in some part of Hinduism, that's fine. If I find wisdom in something Donald Trump says (highly unlikely), that's fine, too.
I don't need the bible. I don't need to be a christian.
I guess I should use the label "Anti-Theist" to be more specific. Or is it Anti-Religion?
Didn't I already do this? Atheists are non -theistic. They cannot be 'anti' something they don't think exists.
But many of them (including myself) are anti -religion or, more specifically anti the influence of organised religion. We don't mind about religion itself, provided it doesn't impact society the way it does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
