Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[flamingjimmy]

Flammingjimmy.

 

On one of the last occasions I indulged in this comic dance another poster admitted he had PMd one of the other participants so it's obviously something that your little gang engage in.

 

Firstly, I'd like to point out that once again you completely ignored my earlier point where I pointed out that the article you linked to in an attempt to "explain how I came to the conclusion you quoted" was factually incorrect, and contained either a glaring error or a lie by the author.

 

OK, let's get this straight. I'm part of no gang, you're being incredibly paranoid. I'm not in regular contact with anyone on here, I don't know anyone on here in real life, it's all in your head.

 

Let me be totally clear so that any objection on your part I will interpret as you calling me a liar:

 

I joined in this discussion entirely of my own volition, after reading the thread, with no prompting from any other people.

 

Oh deary deary me, because it's all about little you isn't it?

Not at all, you're the one who just spent almost 200 words on personal insults against me instead of addressing my argument:

 

You have just proven my acquired opinion that you are one very strange individual.

 

'Your definition is better and I should use yours' so no purblind arrogance going on there then.

 

"You feel the need" bloody hell, I bet you're an absolute treat to bump into and pass the time of day!

 

You know that glazed look that people get when you're talking to them and the way they keep stifling a yawn and sneaking a looking at their watch?

 

Well that rarely, if ever, happens to the rest of us.

 

Your experiences are unique to you and the weird world you inhabit in your own mind.

 

Most people avoid the subject of religion for two reasons, firstly it is considered a private matter and secondly, if you don't know someone that well there's always the chance of unleashing the hidden weirdo.

 

Your acquaintances who have had the misfortune of you 'feeling the need' will know exactly what I mean and will no doubt have learned from their mistake.

Wow, that's a lot of insults and no substantive points.

 

Did you read my post where I said here's "the main reason why I think my definition is much better than yours"?

 

Because you have not at all addressed the point that followed.

 

"if we use your [definition], then atheism doesn't really describe anyone. It doesn't describe the world's most famous (and possibly most annoying) atheist Richard Dawkins, it doesn't describe me, in fact it doesn't describe anyone I've ever met who would call themselves an atheist. I don't know anyone who claims to know as a fact that there are no gods, and to my knowledge have never met such a person.

 

That definition only really exists as a strawman so that those of faith can be like "see! you're just as dogmatic as us!"

 

I'm sure there are a few people out there who genuinely do think they know for a fact that there are no gods, but I've never met one.

 

Now, if we use my definition then it includes every self identifying atheist ever, isn't that much better?"

 

Now, if you can please try to refrain from irrelevant insults about how you think I'd be a total bore at a party and possibly address that point that would be lovely.

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2015 at 16:46 ----------

 

Simply not the way I would express it, they are three distinct choices in my view,and this is backed up by three differing definitions.

 

1 = atheist

 

2 = theist

 

3 = agnostic

 

No need to complicate it, there are three choices.

 

Here are two true statements I can make about myself:

 

I do not believe in any gods.

 

I do not know for a fact that there are no gods.

 

Those two statements do not contradict each other, as a consequence of the first one I am an atheist and as a consequence of the second I am an agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.

Edited January 17, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[mjw47]

Flammingjimmy.

 

Do not concern yourself with how many words I type, I'm a quick typist.

 

Did you count them by the way? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

I didn't answer your question because it had little interest to me, the only reason I provided the link was in reference to the three dictionaries quoted.

 

As for insulting you, when faced with the overweening self regard displayed by you there are limited options.

 

I have no interest in your definition of anything concerning the subject at hand.

 

It is apparently beyond your powers of reasoning to understand that the subject under discussion is inconsequential, there is no reason to discuss it except for amusement value.

 

In all the is there, isn't there, nonsense only one fact exists and that is that no one has any facts, only unprovable theories.

 

This is the third occasion that I have engaged in this otiose debate.

 

During one of the previous threads some complete fool actually advised me that I should pay attention to other posters on the subject because 'they were knowledgeable and erudite on the subject'.

 

Bearing in mind that not one solitary person in the world of either religious or scientific persuasion has a single fact available to them that was a stupid statement.

 

You cannot be erudite on religion or spiritualism as it is all conjecture thought up by man for there own purpose.

 

You cannot be erudite about science with regard to it's view on religion/spiritualism because once again it is all conjecture.

 

 

Richard Dawkins a biologist thinks there is no God and has made money from his promotion of the idea.

 

George Lemaitre a physicist and the man who proposed the 'Big Bang' theory was a Roman Catholic priest and retained his faith.

 

All pure conjecture and not worth worrying about.

 

Why do I bother?

 

Because it is very funny seeing posters tie themselves in knots attempting to persuade everyone that they are erudite and intellectual about a subject that has no facts only guesswork and conjecture.

[flamingjimmy]

<snip long stream of sidestepping>

 

Well that was disappointing, I was hoping you'd maybe respond to at least one of my points.

 

Here they are again, in case you do fancy it at some point.

 

• the article you linked to in an attempt to "explain how I came to the conclusion you quoted" was factually incorrect, and contained either a glaring error or a lie by the author.
  
• if we use your definition, then atheism doesn't really describe anyone. It doesn't describe the world's most famous (and possibly most annoying) atheist Richard Dawkins, it doesn't describe me, in fact it doesn't describe anyone I've ever met who would call themselves an atheist. I don't know anyone who claims to know as a fact that there are no gods, and to my knowledge have never met such a person. If we use my definition then it includes every self identifying atheist ever

 

And here's a really simple way to explain to you why I call myself an agnostic atheist.

 

Here are two true statements I can make about myself:

 

I do not believe in any gods.

 

I do not know for a fact that there are no gods.

 

Those two statements do not contradict each other, as a consequence of the first one I am an atheist and as a consequence of the second I am an agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Do you think those statements contradict each other?

Edited January 17, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[mjw47]

Well that was disappointing, I was hoping you'd maybe respond to at least one of my points.

 

Here they are again, in case you do fancy it at some point.

 

• the article you linked to in an attempt to "explain how I came to the conclusion you quoted" was factually incorrect, and contained either a glaring error or a lie by the author.
  
• if we use your definition, then atheism doesn't really describe anyone. It doesn't describe the world's most famous (and possibly most annoying) atheist Richard Dawkins, it doesn't describe me, in fact it doesn't describe anyone I've ever met who would call themselves an atheist. I don't know anyone who claims to know as a fact that there are no gods, and to my knowledge have never met such a person. If we use my definition then it includes every self identifying atheist ever

 

And here's a really simple way to explain to you why I call myself an agnostic atheist.

 

Here are two true statements I can make about myself:

 

I do not believe in any gods.

 

I do not know for a fact that there are no gods.

 

Those two statements do not contradict each other, as a consequence of the first one I am an atheist and as a consequence of the second I am an agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Do you think those statements contradict each other?

 

You presumably didn't read my last post before posting this?

 

It intrigues me as to why people get so het up about a subject which has no conclusion.

 

Theists I understand to a degree, I was raised in a religion and I have witnessed the comfort some people draw from faith in times of tragedy.

 

Atheists on the other hand are a bit of a puzzle to me.

 

You don't believe, fine, no problem, your choice so why all the fuss?

 

Why bother yourselves with any debate? You don't believe, good for you, why not simply leave it at that?

 

What do you hope to achieve?

 

The only purpose that I can see, is that by prattling on ad nauseam about the definitions of this and the differing nuances of that you delude yourselves into thinking that you are some kind of intellectual.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but it's not working, you simply make yourself look a bit weird and obsessed by a subject with no answers.

 

The very first time that I got involved in this debate I posted in all innocence that I was an Agnostic.

 

The response astonished me, several posters queued up to tell me that I wasn't.

 

As someone who would simply accept anyone elses word if they told me their attitude to religion I was somewhat peed off.

 

I hadn't though much about the subject for years as I considered it a pointless exercise.

 

So before replying I did a bit of research in order to ensure that I hadn't got something wrong.

 

That told me that I was correct in my original claim, so I posted as much.

 

My word wasn't accepted, apparently these people knew what went on inside my head better than I did.

 

At first I got annoyed at their ridiculous posturing, but then it all started to strike me as funny and I decided to argue against their delusions for a laugh.

 

That particular thread got closed by the mods when one poster became so enraged with me that it sounded as though he was becoming apoplectic and heading for a nervous breakdown.

 

So occasionally, for a laugh I include the magic word to see if someone bites. I make no secret of it and ignoring it would be the wise thing, given how the previous threads went.

 

But some people, despite their intellectual pretensions, never learn.

[flamingjimmy]

You presumably didn't read my last post before posting this?

 

It intrigues me as to why people get so het up about a subject which has no conclusion.

 

I'm not het up at all, you're the one who's taking his ball home and throwing personal insults. You can try and paint me as obsessed by this subject but you'd been arguing about it for quite some time before I even joined in! And I would've made about 5 less posts on this thread if I didn't have to keep repeating myself because you ignore all my points!

[mjw47]

I'm not het up at all, you're the one who's taking his ball home and throwing personal insults. You can try and paint me as obsessed by this subject but you'd been arguing about it for quite some time before I even joined in! And I would've made about 5 less posts on this thread if I didn't have to keep repeating myself because you ignore all my points!

 

The reason that I can't be bothered to answer your points is very straight forward, I have no interest whatsoever in your opinions.

 

You are quite obviously a self regarding obsessive with nothing to add to any debate other than your narcissistic viewpoint.

 

There has been an obvious clue staring you in the face throughout this thread which you have failed to pick up on.

 

Think about the views of the people who have posted, there have been Theists and Atheists, but only one Agnostic, why do you think that is?

 

Agnostics take the view that any discussion of this nature is completely without purpose.

 

There are no facts available, and therefore no conclusion can ever be reached and therefore it's all a complete waste of time.

 

I am in complete agreement with that viewpoint ,but have already explained in post 194 why I take part in this nonsense, I'm having a laugh, and also enjoying the tangled web ye weave.

Edited January 18, 2015 by mjw47

[flamingjimmy]

The reason that I can't be bothered to answer your points is very straight forward, I have no interest whatsoever in your opinions.

 

You are quite obviously a self regarding obsessive with nothing to add to any debate other than your narcissistic viewpoint.

*sigh* can you please stop with the personal insults, I haven't once insulted you. You're wrong as well by the way.

 

To say that I haven't added to the debate when you respond to my substantive points with "nah nah nah I'm not listening because you're stupid" is, to say the least, a little odd.

 

There has been an obvious clue staring you in the face throughout this thread which you have failed to pick up on.

 

Think about the views of the people who have posted, there have been Theists and Atheists, but only one Agnostic, why do you think that is?

I don't think that is.

 

Agnostics take the view that any discussion of this nature is completely without purpose.

No they don't, you certainly don't speak for all agnostics there, and I'm not just talking about the ones who call themselves atheists as well.

[mjw47]

Flamingjimmy.

 

You really don't get it do you?

 

You appear totally unaware as to the reason for your action and response to this type of debate.

 

Your fellow travelers and you have such a fanatical obsession with the need to get across your viewpoint on terminology, definitions, etymology and syntax that what you have done is effectively replaced religion with your own form of worship.

 

Like many of the devoutly religious you seem driven by the need to explain and convert others to your beliefs.

 

In post 194 above I explained my viewpoint and why I was even posting on this thread ( which is now way off topic ) it's because it amuses me.

 

You have had it explained that the subject, other than for amusement purposes, has no interest for me.

 

I don't care what views people hold on a subject which will never be fully explained.

 

That has been plain to you and yet you keep posting.

 

Can you see the similarity between your actions and those of evangelical Christians?

 

The overwhelming compulsion to convert and 'save' the non believer.

 

Effectively you and your like minded mates have formed your own non Deity ( but maybe your not sure ) religion.

 

As someone who decided to walk away from the teachings of the original Christian church your chances of conversion are zero.

 

Is there any wonder I find it so amusing?

[flamingjimmy]

Flamingjimmy.

 

You really don't get it do you?

 

You appear totally unaware as to the reason for your action and response to this type of debate.

 

Your fellow travelers and you have such a fanatical obsession with the need to get across your viewpoint on terminology, definitions, etymology and syntax that what you have done is effectively replaced religion with your own form of worship.

 

Like many of the devoutly religious you seem driven by the need to explain and convert others to your beliefs.

 

In post 194 above I explained my viewpoint and why I was even posting on this thread ( which is now way off topic ) it's because it amuses me.

 

You have had it explained that the subject, other than for amusement purposes, has no interest for me.

That's clearly not true, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as annoyed as you did by people telling you that you qualify as an atheist as they define the term. You have at times got really quite worked up about it.

 

You debated it for a while, then gave up and are now pretending that you were never interested in the first place, only after unleashing a tirade of childish personal insults, it comes across as very petty.

[mjw47]

That's clearly not true, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as annoyed as you did by people telling you that you qualify as an atheist as they define the term. You have at times got really quite worked up about it.

 

You debated it for a while, then gave up and are now pretending that you were never interested in the first place, only after unleashing a tirade of childish personal insults, it comes across as very petty.

 

You are beyond hope I'm afraid, annoyed?

 

Most of the time I've been laughing whilst replying to this nonsense.

 

I explained fully toward the end of the last thread on the subject that I posted for amusement purposes only.

 

At no time have I been 'worked up' by anything other than mirth.

 

In the same way that you are unable to resist the urge to 'feel the need to explain' I can't resist a row.

 

I love an argument, but I'm fully aware of that particular weakness of mine, whilst you appear totally oblivious to your overwhelming need to proselytize the views of you and your like minded word addicts.

 

There may well be a self help group for your particular problem and you should give consideration to seeking it out.

 

Any normal person when told that someone is a Theist or Atheist or Agnostic would simply take them at their word and move on.

 

Contrast that with the reaction from you and your mates.

 

Complete obsession and a seeming overwhelming need to convince someone that their view of their own position is incorrect.

 

How is that so much different from the smartly dressed couple that turn up at your door and ask as to whether you've "Heard the good news?".