What is with abusive atheists? (page 10)

Giordano

"I would love to hear what atheists call these manifestations instead"

Hey Soft and Gentle I call it a case of the vapors (which was a Victorian Society statement for a heat flash, dizziness or a touch of who knows what).

To be serious for a moment I actually call those manifestations........ inspiration, serendipity or even spiritual (Not god related but listening to Mozart or standing in a Trout stream making a cast).

"Serendipity. Look for something, find something else, and realize that what you've found is more suited to your needs than what you thought you were looking for."

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny…'"Isaac Asimov

“Whether we name divine presence synchronicity, serendipity, or graced moment matters little. What matters is the reality that our hearts have been understood. Nothing is as real as a healthy dose of magic which restores our spirits.” Nancy Long

And if you can't experience that........ a glass of brown liquor will help get you there.

Gio

still thinking

p.s. I am venting against faith - it is a terrible concept that has allowed mankind to stutter from one wasted life to another believing in whatever woo the current priest decided would best support his personal views. We've tried hugging trees, sacrificing virgins, offering milk to idols, throwing money in wells, burning witches, praying, giving money to priests, chopping off nob ends, putting hankies on women's heads, eating wafers and drinking wine, babbling on a floor, checking our electrical resistence, imbibing collodial silver, wearing crosses, blowing ourselves up, flicking water around, reading fairytales as fact, shaving our heads, wearing amulets, burning candles, going to war, enslaving heathens, torturing sinners, wearing cinctures, chanting mantras, tantric sex, putting pins in dollies, munching endangered species, flagelation and so on. At some point the experiment ceases and we note down the result. Evidence for God = 0....Qcmbr

that brought a tear to my eye....beautiful....just beautiful.....

LOL

still thinking

Anyone in need of a savior is a victim. Victims need to be saved....new chapter.

LOL....I like this thread

sizemik

The dynamics of the debates are most telling . . .

Believers invariably seek to validate and support each other while at the same time denying any connection to religion or any other form of religious belief (I can't speak for anyone else). Some object to even being seen as religious, and yet are still quite clear that their God is the BA/ME one portrayed in the Bible.

Yet the same group uses the term "Atheist" as if it were some organised counter-religion itself, that all non-believers have become automatically baptised into.

The mental calusthenics required to allay the CD is intertwined and matted into almost every line. The arguments are never refuted . . . only avoided or rejected. There's a big difference between the two . . . one provides for reasoned discussion and advancement of understanding, the other provides nothing beyond frustration and entrenchment.

By their fruits . . .

laverite

Sizemilk, you wrote: "Yet the same group uses the term "Atheist" as if it were some organised counter-religion itself, that all non-believers have become automatically baptised into."

Atheists are certainly not a homogenous group. Imagine trying to "organize" atheists into some kind of counter-religion? It would be like herding cats. That's a good thing, I think, about atheists. But it would be wrong to speak of atheists as if they were organized in their group "membership." However, that being said, it's still useful to think in terms of a broad category of people who have very little in common other than their lack of belief in (a) diety/dieties. Perhaps it could be thought of as a sensitizing concept if broad category seems too general.

Fernando

I want to point out that the OP acknowledges that he has had good, respectful conversations on JWN with atheists. He isn't addressing any and all atheists, but only the ones who in his estimation have been abusive. He mentions not just Christians, but believers in general in his OP. He hasn't said that atheists should not discuss atheism with believers on JWN.

Precisely. Thanks for helping me out there FlyingHighNow. I am learning that even us males sometimes fail to communicate what we are thinking, whilst imagining we have!

I also want to acknowledge and applaud Tammy's "patience and diplomacy" in addition to her extraordinary spiritual stamina and capacity.

I don't have the patience of tec or aguest so have decided not to reply for now and let Fernando come in first to direct how he wants the thread to proceed.

Thank's for that soft+gentle.

And why not have a thread on "abusive Christians", NC. I know they exist. Why can't they also be called out? As a whole "Christians" do seem to have way more evil in their history than atheists, possibly even if we adjust to "percentage of evil Christians" versus "percentage of evil atheists".

Whilst I am happy for the thread to go where it will, in the free and open spirit of JWN, I'd also be happy to head back to the hugely more encouraging and unfolding "Candace Conti Case" and the humour of Sparlock which apparently the Watchtower has stolen from Hitler - priceless!!

mrsjones5

*claps slowly*

Berengaria

Hogwash. Why not say abusive posters or abusive debaters? Why abusive atheists if you are not generalizing and quite frankly trying to come off superior?

There was a recently pulled thread about "Mexican Bastards". The poster tried to claim he was angry with drug dealers. Then why didn't he address drug dealers? He made a sweeping racist generalization about Mexicans.

Trying to walk this stuff back is just weak.

mrsjones5

I'm hip Beks, I'm hip.

Berengaria

I know it girl. I honestly don't know where you stand on this issue. I think that's kinda cool.

Oh and I hope it was clear my comment was directed at Fernando.

What is with abusive atheists?

Share this