Atheism: the antithesis of cynicism

[_stemelbow]

Then you don't believe in the Bible. There's no metaphorical take on the rape and murder verses. Either it's fact or fiction. You've chosen to believe the latter. Good!

However, that's really just the tip of the iceberg. There's so much more wrong with god.

If you think belief in the Bible means you have to accept it as an inerrant set of words straight from God's mouth and the versions we have today all agree in every whit, and they represent what was originally written, then I'd see where you're going here. But frankly the evidence is against your view of what it means to believe in the Bible.

[_Buffalo]

Then you don't believe in the Bible. There's no metaphorical take on the rape and murder verses. Either it's fact or fiction. You've chosen to believe the latter. Good!

However, that's really just the tip of the iceberg. There's so much more wrong with god.

If you think belief in the Bible means you have to accept it as an inerrant set of words straight from God's mouth and the versions we have today all agree in every whit, and they represent what was originally written, then I'd see where you're going here. But frankly the evidence is against your view of what it means to believe in the Bible.

Stem, you're extremely heterodox. It seems you believe very little of what's in the scriptures and very little of what comes out of modern prophets/apostles' mouths. But there doesn't seem to be a way for you to verify that the parts you're discarding are really disposable.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, you're extremely heterodox.

I really wish we all could go to you to find our classification, or be assigned them. What is "etremely" heterodox as opposed to just heterodox? At point is "extremely" useful as necessary in the descriptor?

[_Buffalo]

Stem, you're extremely heterodox.

I really wish we all could go to you to find our classification, or be assigned them. What is "etremely" heterodox as opposed to just heterodox? At point is "extremely" useful as necessary in the descriptor?

Meaning that your beliefs are flexible as a rubber band, so long as your end conclusion remains "the church is true and god is real." It's almost as if you don't believe in anything, really, except those two things. You seem to very easily abandon any foundational doctrine in the faith you associate yourself with, minus those two points.

In short, you remind me of me not that long ago. :)

[_stemelbow]

Meaning that your beliefs are flexible as a rubber band, so long as your end conclusion remains "the church is true and god is real." It's almost as if you don't believe in anything, really, except those two things. You seem to very easily abandon any foundational doctrine in the faith you associate yourself with, minus those two points.

In short, you remind me of me not that long ago. :)

Now I'm scared.

[_Buffalo]

Meaning that your beliefs are flexible as a rubber band, so long as your end conclusion remains "the church is true and god is real." It's almost as if you don't believe in anything, really, except those two things. You seem to very easily abandon any foundational doctrine in the faith you associate yourself with, minus those two points.

In short, you remind me of me not that long ago. :)

Now I'm scared.

You should be! :D

[_Hoops]

Given the moral deviancy and lack of character and intelligence of god, not believing in him is de facto optimistic.

Assuming facts not in evidence. I refer to my earlier statement: you claim to know what moral deviancy is and pronounce judgement. You claim to know the historical context in which these events took place (surely you must, to be so dogmatic) yet you can't or won't show any evidence of your expertise. You claim to know what the appropriate amount of character is, and, apparently, how that should be expressed, yet I can't even fathom how you will arrive at that conclusion. Therefor:

atheism is de facto nihilism. Which is only a short jumper away from cynicism (sp?). If not a jump ball.

[_Hoops]

Why is that? Both Christians and Jews were slave-owning people. Eventually they gave it up, but not based on their religious principles.

The anti slavery movement began and was energized by Christians. Primarily in the U.S.

Explain why, don't just argue by assertion.

Hello, Pot. Your a deeper shade of black today. It looks good on you.

Edited for accuracy

See above.

[_Hoops]

Hoops, please don't generalize about atheists just because Buffalo does.

You're right. And I may have done it again above. I am wrong. My apologies for both.

[_Buffalo]

Given the moral deviancy and lack of character and intelligence of god, not believing in him is de facto optimistic.

Assuming facts not in evidence. I refer to my earlier statement: you claim to know what moral deviancy is and pronounce judgement. You claim to know the historical context in which these events took place (surely you must, to be so dogmatic) yet you can't or won't show any evidence of your expertise. You claim to know what the appropriate amount of character is, and, apparently, how that should be expressed, yet I can't even fathom how you will arrive at that conclusion. Therefor:

atheism is de facto nihilism. Which is only a short jumper away from cynicism (sp?). If not a jump ball.

Not at all. Atheism is quite similar to theism in terms of morality - both ascribe the origins of morality to some third party (either god or the the collective wisdom/instincts of humanity).

But if you are able to provide a fitting and proper context to mass infanticide and child rape, I'd love to see it. :)