'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[sccsux]

Ia. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

 

b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

 

c. Lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own.

 

All the above could quite easily be used to describe yourself.

[six45ive]

Therein lies the problem. You don't afford others any respect.

 

Absolutely. Respect has to be earned.

 

Theism includes knowledge through revelation.

 

Which was exactly the point of the disproving god thread that you hijacked by throwing in the red herring that is metaphysics.

[six45ive]

Why then did you post this nonsense?

 

Because my response to your alter ego was meant to be a wildcat/onewheeldave type post that appears to say one thing but if you read it carefully, and what it responds to, can mean something different.

Touche.

[Wildcat]

Absolutely. Respect has to be earned.

 

You won't earn any without showing any.

 

Which was exactly the point of the disproving god thread that you hijacked by throwing in the red herring that is metaphysics.

 

Revelation is a metaphysical approach to knowledge.

 

I wasn't off topic, you just don't understand the words being used and are to arrogant to check before spouting incendiary nonsense.

[Wildcat]

Because my response to your alter ego was meant to be a wildcat/onewheeldave type post that appears to say one thing but if you read it carefully, and what it responds to, can mean something different.

Touche.

 

So you do think I have more than one user account?

 

[Halibut]

Hmmmm.....page 17 and still going.

I still maintain that in the context in which it's most often used here, it's part and parcel of a rather hectoring and aggressive tone which characterises much ( though thankfully not all) of the the atheistic posting on here.

[Grahame]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHoDsIPBaMQ , grahame?

 

I'm not sure what your point is? I had to google the words because I can never make out what these pop singers are saying.

 

Firstly he never did change did he and this is the answer to the introverts who say you have to know yourself. The fact is you cannot change your own nature. You are what you are. The theme of the song which was about changing yourself isn't achievable on your own.

 

Secondly I think we are all agreed the world is in a pretty bad state and as most of Britain is atheist with some religions included and Christianity in the minority, then obviously it is the atheists who need to change.

 

Thirdly, the only person who can change the human heart is Jesus Christ and for that to happen it needs people to take up their cross and follow him.

 

 

[onewheeldave]

Hmmmm.....page 17 and still going.

I still maintain that in the context in which it's most often used here, it's part and parcel of a rather hectoring and aggressive tone which characterises much ( though thankfully not all) of the the atheistic posting on here.

 

In fairness, it's not just atheists who post aggressively and in a non-productive, hectoring fashion.

 

Historically of course, those with religious fundamentalist leanings have been notorious for their dogmatic, hectoring attempts to impose their views on others.

 

Some athi-thiests are quite open about their anger on that matter- google athiests and anger to read explanations of why, as atheists, they feel entitled to post in an angry manner.

 

The sad thing, from my position as a rational human being, is that atheists who make grand claims about their belief that they, unlike believers, post from a superior rationalist perspective, have a horrible tendency to use point-scoring rhetoric techniques, terms that wind-up and inflame the debate as well as much of the stuff they've so quick to critisise in others (such as strawmen etc).

 

Certainly, overall, there tends to be, with anti-theists, a near-zero emphasis on diplomatic posting, or, indeed, any emphasis on posting in such a way that there is any liklihood of actually communicating a point of view leading to a change of mind in the people they are 'debating' with.

 

(Goes without saying, of course, that the same is true of the opposition).

 

All of which is why I long-ago came to my central conclusion, which is that much of the issues traditionally blamed on religious belief (or, in modern times, vice-versa, on the anti-theist position), are, in fact, down to human-nature.

[sccsux]

Thirdly, the only person who can change the human heart is Jesus Christ and for that to happen it needs people to take up their cross and follow him.

 

Rubbish.

 

John McVicar was a criminal; he chose to not be anymore.

[onewheeldave]

I'm not sure what your point is? I had to google the words because I can never make out what these pop singers are saying.

 

Firstly he never did change did he and this is the answer to the introverts who say you have to know yourself. The fact is you cannot change your own nature. You are what you are. The theme of the song which was about changing yourself isn't achievable on your own.

 

Secondly I think we are all agreed the world is in a pretty bad state and as most of Britain is atheist with some religions included and Christianity in the minority, then obviously it is the atheists who need to change.

 

Thirdly, the only person who can change the human heart is Jesus Christ and for that to happen it needs people to take up their cross and follow him.

 

You really don't help things with posts like that

 

"The only person who can change the human heart is Jesus Christ".

 

Waht utter dogma and, to most atheists, really quite offensive, as well as being obviously untrue- the 'only' bit, that is.

 

Probably the main reason for the popularity of atheism, as well as the rising (and, IMO, dangerous, rise in anti-theism), is centuries of oppression, torture and murder by various christian churches.

 

I've argued that those atrocities were not necessarily down to religious belief, but, they were most certainly made possible by the dogmatic assumptions that they, and only they, possessed the truth.