I saw the realms of God a personal experience of life beyond life

[RichardHresko]

Ignore my previous remark, it was a mistaken attempt at levity.

You do know how dictionaries work? And that words are constantly updated, added and changed in meaning? Dictionaries are one organisation's recording of what a word means at the time the description was written. If OED is the sole arbiter of English, then it would appear that all other dictionaries shouldn't exist.

If I want to know what the definition of "Roman Catholic" is, I go to the RCC, not the OED. If I want to know what an Anglican is, I'd be emailing Rowan Williams.

Seriously, I'm surprised you even asked this question. If you think my idea of what "atheist" means, then a hell of a lot of atheists must be highly eccentric, as the description I've given you time after time is by far the most widely-accepted description of the term.



Here, you manage to call me closed[sic]-minded and say that I reject evidence out of hand in one sentence, which is a pretty neat trick.

Au contraire, and that's why I'm now responding at length.

I am not even slightly closed-minded, and saying that just because I don't agree with your analysis is a bit pointless. I have above explained precisely why a dictionary meaning shouldn't be taken as last authority on the subject, albeit one from an institution as respected as the Oxford Press.



QED.

1) Nobody claimed that the OED is the sole arbiter of English words. It is a recognized authority. In proper, scholarly discussion if one wishes to challenge an authority one either shows why that authority is biased or wrong, or cites an opposing one. Mere gainsaying is not, as Monty Python pointed out, an argument.

2) Congratulations on your self-appointment as determiner of atheist orthodoxy on a par with Rome and Canterbury! If you are not the determiner of atheist orthodoxy, then kindly do something other than hand-waving when you make claims as to what atheists believe -- for example, cite authorities who are in a position to speak with authority on the subject.

3) Someone who is not closed-minded is aware that in English there are many words that have alternate spellings. "Close-minded" is a recognized variant of "closed-minded" as a perusal of the American Heritage Dictionary will verify.

You are close-minded because you do not respond with thoughtful analysis and research when your views are challenged. Rather, you merely deny the charges without proof and make further unsubstantiated claims (such as your claim that your definition of atheism is "by far the most widely-accepted description of the term").

[The Atheist]

Ah, the argument Ad Dawkinsum.

No, it has nothing to do with Dawkins. I have atheist literature from before Jesus Christ which covers the topic, so it's at least two millennia before Richard.

Still, it's as good a swerve as any, because the point about agnosticism regarding those gods stands.

You miss the point though. We are talking about the concept of knowledge, and how it ties into dispute. the only way to not believe in something, is to conceptualize it. In that sense, I cannot believe in something I do not know of, since, not knowing of it, I do not know how to not believe in it.

No, I haven't missed any points, I understand exactly what agnosticism is saying, and I'm not agnostic on any gods that I've never heard of, which would number in the thousands. The argument is just spurious.

You're still tied up in disbelief as opposed to not believing in, and if you can't get past that very simple point, then we're chasing each other around the mulberry bush.

In that sense, as a discourse, atheism is limited to the existence of theism - to declare yourself an atheist then, you automatically declare yourself as discrediting theism, not believing in a God. So, in other words, You believe/know there is no God, meaning, you are contradicting, rather than "free thinking" and you are just as rooted in the discourse as anyone else.

And there it is again.

Since you're determined that that's the meaning of atheism you're arguing against, I'll just let you do so.

You try and make the argument that Atheism is some sort of inherent real, but where is the grounding?

Nonsense. I've never said that, or even something you could paraphrase that way.

Was believing in Evolution an inherent real before it was hypothesized? What about the ancient Chinese, were they atheist to the Jewish faith, or were they simply on the other side of the world. You cannot start labeling people to suit your political motivations ...

Surprisingly, that's exactly what you're doing.

All I'm doing is making a plain description clear. I've already noted that babies, rocks and dongoes are all atheist.

It's so, so simple:

a + moral = without morals
a + theism = without god/s

...you cannot be something, unless you are acknowledged/acknowledge yourself as something -therefore, you cannot be atheist, which, given the definition you dispute because it disagrees with you, would imply a strong need for a conceptualization of a deity to generate such an attitude.

As above, just more mis-categorising of atheism.

But of course, someone, after this, is going to come in here with another tedious response, wherein, it becomes clear that he only reads what feeds his arguments, and ignores the rest (meanwhile breaking things up into single sentences to try and authoritatively manipulate the context of someone else's post to serve his arrogant discourse) so why should I bother posting?

You know, I have to say that I find your means of attempting to manipulate a discussion while claiming I am highly amusing.

You seem to think that your posts should be answered in one way only.

Alas, I prefer to do it bit by bit, so if you don't like it, I suggest you stop. I'm not actually trying to manipulate yours at all, but I do want to ensure that some of your minor points don't get neglected.

Arrogant? Sure I am. Better than your anal comment previously.

Lets face it, atheists are just as belief-bound as theists.

Funny how someone reputedly agnostic is so fundamental when it suits. Same argument, same answer.

Some of them think, just because they are obtuse opinionated "Atheists"(or "The Atheists") who somehow are "Above" religion, that they have the right to come here sporting an "I am right you are all idiots" attitude and calling everyone else names for thinking differently, so, when it comes down to it, all the arguments against religion ultimately fail, as, from observation, a belief or disbelief in the religion doesn't a) make one a better person (the argument ad Al-Quedum), b) make one a more open minded person (the argument ad scientificum), or better yet c) make one any more interesting to listen to (no neologisms for this one).

So, now we've moved on from what an atheist actually is to what I think!

Again, your argument, which I'll leave to you, since there's no point in challenging things you've clearly made up. That it bears no relation to reality can be easily proven by your failure to show where I have ever said those things or acted that way.

Maybe it's some other "The Atheist" you're thinking of.

Pity Pendragon's not here - at least he's honest and would tell you that I've once disrespected his faith or god.

Both of these seem camps are highly influenced by America at any rate - the preacher, in the European tradition, would have been burned to a crisp, whereas today they are given street corners and are allowed to come-a-knocking on my door.

What a complete lack of understanding of atheism!

As I've already mentioned, atheism is a lot older than America.

The atheist too would have, whereas now they simply follow the preachers in everything, including holding conventions and whatnot.

That other "The Atheist" again, since it sure as hell doesn't apply to me. I've never been a member of an atheist group, and I certainly don't follow any atheist "preachers". I have, however, on many occasions, described Dawkins' brand of "club atheism" as a joke and rarely quote him unless someone - like you above - brings him into it first.

All I know is, when it comes down to it, traditional religious music is far more pleasant to the ear than any of this tedious banter, and, quite simply, sometimes it is enjoyable to experience a culture, and appreciate its history and traditions without perhaps believing in its deities - though one should show respect, assuming there is respect merited.

Again, again, again, you're arguing against your strawman of atheism rather than me or anyone I'm friends with, so I'll leave it.

But no, alas, tedious preachers coming in saying they saw Jesus when they were on the toilet, and annoying atheists coming here saying everyone who disagrees with them is a moron...

More straw. Again, I challenge you to find where I have said that.

... - who is worse tell me? You've (you Atheists) have essentially become what you are criticizing - good job, you ruined it for the rest of us who merely wished to enjoy life without being so god damn uptight.

If your words were true, you'd ignore the entire debate.

Now, you've contradicted yourself, which fits nicely with the list of fallacies and incorrect assertions you made on the way through.

1) Nobody claimed that the OED is the sole arbiter of English words. It is a recognized authority. In proper, scholarly discussion if one wishes to challenged an authority one either shows why that authority is biased or wrong, or cites an opposing one. Mere gainsaying is not, as Monty Python pointed out, an argument.

Ah, we have made progress, although it's nice of you to yet again ignore the central question of how dictionaries are compiled. The word comes first and gains usage before it's ever put in a dictionary. I didn't just gainsay you, and your ignoring the questions I put doesn't mean I didn't type them in.



I note you also avoided the OED description of Roman Catholic.

2) Congratulations on your self-appointment as determiner of atheist orthodoxy on a par with Rome and Canterbury! If you are not the determiner of atheist orthodoxy, then kindly do something other than hand-waving when you make claims as to what atheists believe -- for example, cite authorities that are in a position to speak with authority on the subject.

Authority? I would have thought that to an English expert, use of the definite article before "Atheist" would have been quite plain that I am the authority. Old Sturmbannfuhrer Ratzinger isn't a pope, he's the pope.

If you doubt me, check out some of the better-known atheists, Dawkins, Dennett, Randi, Hitchens, etc; you'll find they agree with me 100%.

3) Someone who is not closed-minded is aware that in English there are many words that have alternate spellings. "Close-minded" is a recognized variant of "closed-minded" as a perusal of the American Heritage Dictionary will verify.

I do indeed realise that, and if you check back, all I did was draw attention to my different spelling. That's what the [sic] does - it's an emphasis, not saying "LOL your wrong!!11!"

You are close-minded because you do not respond with thoughtful analysis and research when your views are challenged.

That is incorrect.

Show me where I've ever done that. Between you and JBI, this thread is looking more fantasy than the bible.

Even better, coming from someone who consistently refuses to even acknowledge questions put to you, I find the idea laughable.

Rather, you merely deny the charges without proof and make further unsubstantiated claims (such as your claim that your definition of atheism is "by far the most widely-accepted description of the term").

Well, the only way that can be substantiated by you is by going and asking - which I know you won't do since it contradicts your cherished opinion.

I'm giving you the benefit of several enormous and well-argued threads at various atheist forums that I've participated in, but as you won't take my word for it, try the following:

James Randi Forum
Richard Dawkins Forum
Internet Infidels Forum.

You will find that the overwhelming opinion agrees with what I've said.

[JBI]

I'll just finish this quickly, because clearly the faceteous posters on this thread are thick, and selective with their quotes, as anyone can see, but from your own mouth:

It's so, so simple:

a + moral = without morals
a + theism = without god/s

You are right, it is so simple A + moral = without morals - what are morals? Who defines what is moral and amoral? If morals do not exist, how can you be without morals?

A + Theism = without gods - originally meaning without the right gods, or better yet, with the wrong gods, as, for instance, the term was used for Catholics in England during the 16th and 17th centuries, changing meanings again in the Enlightenment to come closer to the current meaning, though more often referring to a sort of polemic, wherein the "Atheist" would deny the existence of a creator deity, I. E. The Christian God, which, in the 20th century, seems to have morphed meanings into something which is now akin to a disbelief in all deities.

Now, how can you disbelieve something if you cannot conceptualize it? We created moral codes, quite simply, and we can go against them, and be immoral, or act by no apparent pattern, and be amoral, but the construct of amorality is determined by the construct of morality - you cannot be amoral if morality is thought to exist, as, naturally you cannot lack something that hasn't been conceptualized - morals, which, aren't constant at any rate anyway.

As for Gods then, how can you disbelieve in a God you cannot conceptualize? Are you suggesting then, that ancient Egyptians disbelieved in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, even though they existed thousands of years before him? Seems a bit of a logical fallacy, no? But of course, this post too will be picked at, and broken up, as you are unable to quote paragraphs, as I mentioned before, evidently because it is easier to take things out of context the other way.

Hope this suffices - there is no long without short, no heavy without light, no hot without cold, no disbelief without belief.

[The Atheist]

I'll just finish this quickly, because clearly the faceteous posters on this thread are thick, ...

That closes the argument from my end.

[islandclimber]

I'll just finish this quickly, because clearly the faceteous posters on this thread are thick, and selective with their quotes, as anyone can see, but from your own mouth:



You are right, it is so simple A + moral = without morals - what are morals? Who defines what is moral and amoral? If morals do not exist, how can you be without morals?

A + Theism = without gods - originally meaning without the right gods, or better yet, with the wrong gods, as, for instance, the term was used for Catholics in England during the 16th and 17th centuries, changing meanings again in the Enlightenment to come closer to the current meaning, though more often referring to a sort of polemic, wherein the "Atheist" would deny the existence of a creator deity, I. E. The Christian God, which, in the 20th century, seems to have morphed meanings into something which is now akin to a disbelief in all deities.

Now, how can you disbelieve something if you cannot conceptualize it? We created moral codes, quite simply, and we can go against them, and be immoral, or act by no apparent pattern, and be amoral, but the construct of amorality is determined by the construct of morality - you cannot be amoral if morality is thought to exist, as, naturally you cannot lack something that hasn't been conceptualized - morals, which, aren't constant at any rate anyway.

As for Gods then, how can you disbelieve in a God you cannot conceptualize? Are you suggesting then, that ancient Egyptians disbelieved in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, even though they existed thousands of years before him? Seems a bit of a logical fallacy, no? But of course, this post too will be picked at, and broken up, as you are unable to quote paragraphs, as I mentioned before, evidently because it is easier to take things out of context the other way.

Hope this suffices - there is no long without short, no heavy without light, no hot without cold, no disbelief without belief.

but this is not necessarily true either, as anything which has not been exposed to morals, or theism, such as a baby, a rock, a caterpillar, well these things would be described as amoral and atheist by an outside observer who had been exposed to them.. and yet they are not denying god, or morals, and claiming these things hold no sway over them, they are just "unaware", "without" morals or gods...

now, I will agree that because of humankind's frequent propensity to create gods, atheism has become a a construct of denying the reality of those gods, but this does not mean in the slightest that it cannot also be the position that The Atheist suggests of just being without gods, not so much a denial as a lack of... for it could be turned around to say that believing in gods is just a denial of the a godless universe... and of course to begin with, if we look at evolution god came after man, so the very first "man"/"primate"/"evolutionary step" was an atheist until god was invented (maybe even by him)... so in reality the creation of god is most likely the real negation here, of the original universe with no god.. therefore in it's original meaning "a-theism" literally means without gods, or lacking gods, and has nothing to do with disbelief or negation.. of course before the first creation of a god, the term atheism did not exist, but that is irrelevant, as we would still suggest anyone ignorant of even the idea of a god, unable to conceptualize such a thing, well we would as outside observers call them atheists.. would we not?

I just don't really see the point in arguing this as of course, all humans capable of reasoning can conceptualize god(s)... but I would suggest that this does not necessarily mean atheism can only exist with theism.. only the term atheism cannot exist without theism, the actual meaning of the word can describe any"thing" without gods, whether gods can be conceptualized or not...

[JBI]

Just being without Gods, without the existence of the concept of Gods is not Atheism, it is simply nothing, as there is no name for anything we cannot conceptualize - you need a trace to give words meaning, and thereby, you cannot label things that aren't built on traces - signifier, and signified - the signifier points to other signifiers, which in turn, point to others - you cannot label things just because they fit your agenda - one cannot make up definitions of atheism to suit their own goals and self-righteous banter. The way language works, is it gives a name to a concept - without the concept, there is no name - without a concept of deity, there cannot be a disbelief in it - the term atheism then, is bound to the term theism - the term theism, is bound to religion, religion then, is bound to a tradition, which, in itself, is probably bound to a psychological condition. You cannot skip A B C to get to D, and then claim that A B C do not exist. Atheism is just as much a part of a discourse as theism - people aren't born atheist, and people aren't born amoral (and babies are hardly amoral, they merely function on a different value system) they are measured against other labels.

It is the basic of Aristotelian thought - you label something, and then assign it to categories - that's what Atheism is - it is a label, assigned to a category - the words themselves though aren't real outside of the frame of reference they exist in.

Think of it this way - you put all the people who believe in deities in one box, and then you proclaim yourself as outside the box - without the box, you cannot be outside of the box. But no, there is a self righteous association by some posters on this thread, of being somehow outside of the box, without acknowledging that others are inside the box, or that the box exists? How is that possible - how can you be outside of it, without it being there?

Atheism is understood today, as a disbelief in all deities (contrary to traditional definitions pertaining to certain deities) you cannot disbelieve in something without conceptualizing it - you cannot claim water is cold and not hot meanwhile rejecting the existence of the water - it is merely faulty rhetoric.


Lets be honest - this concept of names clouding the truth is hardly new - it's been around for at least 2400 years (and probably longer). Yet some are so bound to their labels that they cannot approach the argument meanwhile questioning their labels as, in themselves, merely labeled understandings, and therefore subject to the same restrictions of language as applied to everything else.

[Jozanny]

JBI, to the extent that I take your point, I take your point, but no one that I know of is sitting around keeping a scorecard between faith and logic, or stopping you from embracing whatever cultural traditions you chose.

I have a certain nostalgia for the quest and certainty that the Roman church once afforded me, so perhaps to that extent I can understand the pull of LDS even though I rather don't understand what the attraction actually is.

Faith is comforting; materialism isn't, but why the same argument constantly replays itself in a forum for religious texts is beyond me. It's not a chess match.

[jocky]

Athiest, hope I am not pushing the word limit, but why are you trying to intellectualise blatant rubbish. A sense of humour clearly gets thrown out the window, whenever the God word gets mentioned. I, for one have never blamed religion for the worlds troubles, us humans can create mayhem anywhere and anytime without divine intervention. It is quite simplistic when you rationalise human behaviour really, If we come from single celled ameobas in the primordial soup, as Darwiniasm suggests, is it any wonder we have the odd problem or two? Why do some, seemingly intelligent products of natural selection on this thread, argue that everything is down to some divine altruistic force? Maybe I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am a decent human being and I truely believe that it is down to us to make this world a better place. Athiesm is not, in my opinion, an unintellectual cheap shot, but a valid individual response to a dogmatic set of values that are tearing the world apart. To be a free thinker is not the worst thing, obviously spelling Dawkins wrongly is.

[The Atheist]

Athiest, hope I am not pushing the word limit, but why are you trying to intellectualise blatant rubbish.

I try not to actually, these days.

I just find it difficult to let completely incorrect assertions stand. Especially in this forum, because it's the sort of place people might expect to learn something and I like fixing misconceptions.

Whether or not it works, who knows, but it's an easy hobby.

A sense of humour clearly gets thrown out the window, whenever the God word gets mentioned.

That in iteself turns out pretty funny sometimes.

I, for one have never blamed religion for the worlds troubles, us humans can create mayhem anywhere and anytime without divine intervention.

Same. I never bring that subject to the table, because you're absolutely right. It's like blaming Islam for terrorism - it just doesn't work. One thing Stalin & Mao showed us was that you don't need religion to be a despot.

It is quite simplistic when you rationalise human behaviour really, If we come from single celled ameobas in the primordial soup, as Darwiniasm suggests, is it any wonder we have the odd problem or two? Why do some, seemingly intelligent products of natural selection on this thread, argue that everything is down to some divine altruistic force? Maybe I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am a decent human being and I truely believe that it is down to us to make this world a better place. Athiesm is not, in my opinion, an unintellectual cheap shot, but a valid individual response to a dogmatic set of values that are tearing the world apart. To be a free thinker is not the worst thing, obviously spelling Dawkins wrongly is.

I quite often spell it Dorkins, so typos are allowed!

I think the why of religion covers a lot of bases, but the most important thing about belief is that people generally believe what they want to. That's why we have some people out looking for sasquatches (couple of mates of mine do that, crazy buggers!), and up your way, people think a prehistoric monster inhabits one of the lakes. You must be familiar with the film The Day The earth Stood Still? Not the remake last year, but the original.

It was made to play on human fears of nuclear war, and the hope that some greater power would protect us from ourselves. Religion covers the same kind of fears; people are scared of not being alive any more, so accept the notion that a god is going to kiss it all better when we die. Lovely thought - I wish I could believe it. (although I'm not sure how ex-wives come into the package - do they have separate neighbourhoods in heaven?)

[JBI]

It was made to play on human fears of nuclear war, and the hope that some greater power would protect us from ourselves. Religion covers the same kind of fears; people are scared of not being alive any more, so accept the notion that a god is going to kiss it all better when we die. Lovely thought - I wish I could believe it. (although I'm not sure how ex-wives come into the package - do they have separate neighbourhoods in heaven?)

And you accuse me of generalizing or creating a straw man? Which religions exactly? One wouldn't want to accuse you of following the Dawkins bunch in only knowing of two religions, Islam and Christianity. The actual argument of religion as perpetuated by fear only works in some circumstances - the actual truth is though, that I cannot see any connection between fear and belief in, for instance, the Classical Folk Religion of China (which estimates say 400 odd million people believe in, to some degree), are we to say also, that Shinto traditions only exist because people are afraid? or that Jews adhere to the old ways because they are afraid to change (even though the holding to the old ways has, and is, a constant perpetuator of injustice in many regions of this world)?

It all comes down to that Asimov story (can't remember the name) from the beginning of I Robot, where the robot in the space ship is convinced he is the superior being, and is convinced he is at the centre of the world, meanwhile is required to ensure the survival of the satellite, and the earth - and, despite not understanding anything, still manages to do his job fine, even though he does it for bizarre reasons. The point is, in the end the job gets done - who cares what the motivation is - why should anyone care what other people choose to believe in, unless it begins to effect someone else?

The fact that, according to your above post, you make a sort of hobby of it, in truth, seems like the exact opposite; I am not thinking it is too maverick a position to think that perhaps you commit the exact same offense that you accuse such theists of committing, that of raining on everyone's parade for the sake of perpetuating a single belief system, I won't accuse you of that, for Brutus is an honorable man, but I can see how people would.

Now don't get me wrong, I like to yell at people who come cutting and pasting cuttings into public forums, which, is against the rules keep in mind, but I am not about to tell people they are idiots for believing in it, or that they are afraid of some cruel world, or whatever - so, in truth, the rationalist response to preachers, and imposers of opinions, who don't like to listen, and merely like to rant and make "a hobby" out of coming on public forums to preach, is to call them immature, annoying ignoramuses, with perhaps nothing to really offer besides some cheap jokes, fancily worded rhetoric, and downright boring pages of Onanist tripe, but They Are All Honorable men.

[jocky]

Athiest, I would have done the quote thing, but as you are well aware by now I am a computer illiterate. As to the loch Ness issue, I have never seen it but I nearly caught it. It can actually speak, it told me clearly I was a product of cold war paranoia, at that point I let it go. Bloody Russians! Sasquatch versus Nessie with God as the intermediary, surely some Japanese director will direct it. How is Athiest minor doing, wont be long before I get booted of this thread also? It is all getting to clever for me. Hitchens is a brilliant orator and writer though, just shows you what a public school education can achieve. Thank God,(wrong word) I never recieved one.

[jocky]

And you accuse me of generalizing or creating a straw man? Which religions exactly? One wouldn't want to accuse you of following the Dawkins bunch in only knowing of two religions, Islam and Christianity. The actual argument of religion as perpetuated by fear only works in some circumstances - the actual truth is though, that I cannot see any connection between fear and belief in, for instance, the Classical Folk Religion of China (which estimates say 400 odd million people believe in, to some degree), are we to say also, that Shinto traditions only exist because people are afraid? or that Jews adhere to the old ways because they are afraid to change (even though the holding to the old ways has, and is, a constant perpetuator of injustice in many regions of this world)?

It all comes down to that Asimov story (can't remember the name) from the beginning of I Robot, where the robot in the space ship is convinced he is the superior being, and is convinced he is at the centre of the world, meanwhile is required to ensure the survival of the satellite, and the earth - and, despite not understanding anything, still manages to do his job fine, even though he does it for bizarre reasons. The point is, in the end the job gets done - who cares what the motivation is - why should anyone care what other people choose to believe in, unless it begins to effect someone else?

The fact that, according to your above post, you make a sort of hobby of it, in truth, seems like the exact opposite; I am not thinking it is too maverick a position to think that perhaps you commit the exact same offense that you accuse such theists of committing, that of raining on everyone's parade for the sake of perpetuating a single belief system, I won't accuse you of that, for Brutus is an honorable man, but I can see how people would.

Now don't get me wrong, I like to yell at people who come cutting and pasting cuttings into public forums, which, is against the rules keep in mind, but I am not about to tell people they are idiots for believing in it, or that they are afraid of some cruel world, or whatever - so, in truth, the rationalist response to preachers, and imposers of opinions, who don't like to listen, and merely like to rant and make "a hobby" out of coming on public forums to preach, is to call them immature, annoying ignoramuses, with perhaps nothing to really offer besides some cheap jokes, fancily worded rhetoric, and downright boring pages of Onanist tripe, but They Are All Honorable men.

Listen why are you bringing Shakespeare and Brutus into the discussion? I dont remember Shakespeare ever giving an opinion on theological issues and Brutus was anything but honorable. What are you on about ' against the rules '? Your crack about , 'annoying ignoramuses' needs a fuller explanation. maybe you have broken some rules. I dont recall anyone in this thread calling anyone an idiot. As for ' fancy worded rhetoric ' you seem to have made that your own idiom ' rationalist response to preachers, and imposerers of opinion' What is your problem, and I am sure Azimov would not have appreciated being drawn into this one, and as for Onanist tripe get a life? Is this your response to someone arguing against divinity, 500,0000 Chinese , please just get back to the argument.

[jocky]

(although I'm not sure how ex-wives come into the package - do they have separate neighbourhoods in heaven?)

Athiest, you have done it again, I am Thick, Scottish, Unquoter, Motherless, I can forgive all that, but to hell with bringing up ex-wives that is unforgiveable.

[JuniperWoolf]

Not to butt in, but don't you guys ever get bored of having the same conversations over and over? Is it a pride thing?

[JBI]

Listen why are you bringing Shakespeare and Brutus into the discussion? I dont remember Shakespeare ever giving an opinion on theological issues and Brutus was anything but honorable. What are you on about ' against the rules '? Your crack about , 'annoying ignoramuses' needs a fuller explanation. maybe you have broken some rules. I dont recall anyone in this thread calling anyone an idiot. As for ' fancy worded rhetoric ' you seem to have made that your own idiom ' rationalist response to preachers, and imposerers of opinion' What is your problem, and I am sure Azimov would not have appreciated being drawn into this one, and as for Onanist tripe get a life? Is this your response to someone arguing against divinity, 500,0000 Chinese , please just get back to the argument.

Dude, take it easy - I hold nothing against you, I use such a term because, quite simply, three strikes and you're out - and I have 30 already, so I don't need the Banninator bringing down her hammer on me. Seriously, sorry if perhaps my language isn't clear, but I am deliberately bypassing saying anything that would get me banned, so you may perhaps have to read more closely, or ignore my comments - as for "Brutus is an Honorable Man" that is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and was chosen because, given its general familiarity, especially on a literary forum, serves its purposes of being a perfect ironic statement.

Relax - there is no need to personalize attacks.


As for Shakespeare never contemplating these issues though, perhaps one may need to reread him.