Artful Dodger: "Oh wait....now I'm confused....just a sec.."


LOL ~~~~ Hey, I know the feeling! Is it just me, or is it getting surreal in here?

Bwild: [ no...I mean its really not up to an athiest to prove there isnt a god. ]

That's not what I was asking him to prove... in fact, I've never asked anyone to try proving that.

Bwild: [ I'm not an atheist. ] ~ Prove it.

"Iamon lyme: its really the other way around."

Do you mean it's up to me to prove he is? Or did you mean something else?

He made the statement that he is not an atheist. That's fine, but so far he hasn't said anything that would make me believe that he isn't. It can't be the other way around because it's not up to me to back up or disprove his statement. Based on everything I've seen him say up to this point I believe he is an atheist, so it's puzzling that he would say that he isn't and then act as though that's all that needs to be said.

If a duck told me he is not a duck, I'm not going to believe him unless he can back up that claim with something (anything) resembling evidence of him not being a duck. It's as simple as proving (demonstrating) that he is actually some other kind of bird.

If he can tell me about the god or gods he truly believes exist then okay, he's not an atheist.

And if he doesn't want to tell me, then that is okay too. But the only way someone can back up the statement he is not an atheist is to demonstrate some kind of belief in a god or gods. And I don't mean some high ideal or fuzzy idea about the universe, or some cheap workaround about how he is the god that he worships, and therefore he cannot be an atheist.

The guy can build his own computer, but he can't explain why he isn't an atheist? I'm not interested in playing word games with him, and I assume his grasp of the English language is adequate... but maybe that's where I've made my mistake, maybe I've assumed too much. How hard can this be?

(V): quidquid supernatat vestra navicula

(V): [ So you know what judging means now? ]

I'm saying you are confusing different meanings of the word judgement by ignoring context. Whether intentionally or not you are implying there is only one meaning. I won't be the judge of whether you do this intentionally or not. But I will say that I don't need you to interpret the Bible for me, especially in light of your not being able (or willing) to acknowledge something as simple to understand as this.

I don't need to be judgemental to understand the distinction between a day of final judgement, and judging words and actions.

Are you able to comprehend that if no one were able to judge themselves, or what they do, or what they say, that (literally) nothing could get done? You would be in a constant state of indecision.

Frankly, I'm relieved that only God is qualified to judge my soul. If it were left up to nincomepoops to arbitrarily decide if I was good enough or not, I would truly have reason to be afraid.

(V): judg·ment [juhj-muhnt] noun

1. an act or instance of judging.

2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.

3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.

4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

5. the opinion formed: He regretted his hasty judgment.

(V): "And by what authority are you able to suggest that I do not have that right?"

[ The Bible says so... judging isn't it!! ]

No, it isn't. Since when is saying what I believe judging? Judging you would be telling you what your ultimate fate will be. Only God knows that. If you are offended because God might judge you someday, then that is another matter... that is between you and God.


"That's easy... just say something an atheist wouldn't say."

[ And who is the judge on what an atheist would or wouldn't say? ]

If that is what you really think, then how are you able to judge anything said at this board? What gives you the right? You are arguing against your own modus aperandi.

(V): [ I'm not an atheist. ]

Prove it.

"How?"

That's easy... just say something an atheist wouldn't say.







Hey, I said it was easy... I didn't say it wouldn't be painful.

Iamon lyme: I thought that post was directed to me. But now I see it wasn't... so feel free to ignore it. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ahhhhh Oh man, I just made myself laugh again.

By the way, has it occurred to you that when someone replies to your messages, they aren't necessarily talking to you?

(V): [ ..who are you to tell someone how to believe or know God? ]

Who are you to tell me that I can't? Did God reveal this to you?

And by what authority are you able to suggest that I do not have that right? Is the ability to suppress that right something you have in the UK, because I don't believe we have anything like that in the US... not in my backyard. But there are people here who would love nothing more than to suppress and restrict any right associated with Christianity. Is that what your brand of religion advocates?

Artful Dodger: [ He's not an atheist but definitely has created god in his own image. A caricature really. ]

Unfortunately some Christians have done the same thing... they have created in their own minds a more palatable god for them to look up to. It's unfortunate because I'm sure God is not impressed with anyone who gives him lip service and then misrepresents who he is.

However, I'm sure V's god (whoever or whatever he/she/it is) meets with V's approval and lives up to his expectations.

(V): [ I'm not an atheist. ]

Prove it.

[ Neither am I a supporter of 'evangelical' type Christianity. ]

So?

[ Is that hard for you to comprehend? ]

"that", no... you, yes.

Outside the USA it isn't.

An example of overgeneralized thinking. Seeing as how the US has it's own la la landers and life long residents of Loonytownshipshiresburough, that last statement of yours isn't just meaningless... it's dead wrong.



"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support" [John Buchan, On Being a Real Person]

"By night an atheist half believes a God" [Edward Young, The Complaint: Night Thoughts]

"No one has ever died an atheist" [Plato Laws]

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

The Col: No, I didn't miss your point and yes, I chose to ignore it. If you think it's that important then by all means, take a day off.

I'm not a politician and as far as I know, neither are you. Do I need to repeat or expand on what I said to V about double standards? If you think you should show respect by not commenting on it today, then by all means go for it. But please be advised, sanctimonious guilt mongering isn't something I will fall down for... I'm not a Democrat.

Yer better off preaching to the choir... your choir.

(V): "...a certain phrase regarding casting stones."

That's cute. The atheist thinks all he has to do to get a Christian confused is to refer to scripture.

Casting stones is what you do nearly every time you post, but I'm sure you've worked it out how you are not a hypocrite. I have yet to meet an atheist who couldn't make a double standard their modus operandi.

The Col: "...putting The politics of 9/11 aside for just one day."

Be my guest. No one is stopping you from taking a day off from reality, that's what holidays are for. I take my days off when I choose to.

By the way, this is the one day of the year the terrorists would just love to pull off a strike, but like I say, take the day off if that's your cup of tea. I live in the US, not Canada or the UK.

Bwild: "dont inhale??? lol"

It was worse than that. Kids aren't stupid, they knew what the adults knew about Clinton... "If the president can 'bend' the truth and have sex with whoever and whatever, then why is it wrong for me?" They didn't literally say that to me, but you could see it in their faces and in their attitudes.

A lot of high school kids thought it was cool that the president was a skirt chaser. It was HIllarys job to cover for Bill and to say that she didn't believe the allegations. But when the Monica story broke, I guess it was too much for her, so she started in breaking a few things herself. lol

Keystone XL Pipeline Project

[[TransCanada is fully committed to the construction of the 1,897-km (1,179-mile) Keystone XL Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application to be processed in an expedited manner, making use of the exhaustive record compiled over the past three plus years of regulatory review to allow for an in-service date of 2015. TransCanada anticipates approval of the Presidential Permit application - which is required as the pipeline will cross the Canada/U.S. border - in the first quarter of 2013, after which construction will quickly begin.]]


I'm hoping their optimism is not premature... in other words, hoping for the change needed to get things rolling again.

Artful Dodger: I'll be honoring the true terrorist busters today... and not the ones who opposed the security measures we took after 9/11. I don't care what anyone says about Bush. He did the one thing that needed to be done, and did it over the protests of nearly every Democrat representative and leader. Bush made sure our nation would be more secure.

Iamon lyme: [ Before beginning his first term as president in the 80's... ]

Wo... I was off by a whole decade! I should have remembered when Bill Clinton was in office, because two of my kids were teenagers then. I had a heck of a time convincing them that they shouldn't try following his example... presidents have a lot of influence, especially over kids who often think the president can do no wrong.

Artful Dodger: And Hillary is no better. Whatever she wasn't involved in, she was aware of. Having her for president would be like having Bill all over again, the only difference being is that she apparently knows how to keep her pants from falling down.

Artful Dodger: It's funny because it's true. He truly is a master of subtlety. He managed to come across as supporting Obama, and at the same time reminded us of how Obama didn't really accomplish much in the past four years.

Before beginning his first term as president in the 80's both friends and enemies alike described Clinton as "machiavellian". And he proved them right with some slick slieght of hand maneuvers, like staying one step ahead of the law by using the presidency to avoid going to court over assault charges, shady business dealings in Arkansas, and who knows what else? Not to mention lying to a grand jury, which would have landed anyone else in jail for willful perjury. Being disbarred was not much of a slap on the wrist when you look at everything and everyone he was involved with. I don't see him as some grand old southern gentleman, and anyone who does either doesn't know anything about him, or doesn't care to know.

The real message (hidden) within Bubba's speech at the convention.

MissDelish: Yeah, you missed a rehash of the old hash that came from previous hash reconstituted from hash that came before that... so no, you really didn't miss too much.

It all went kind of like this...

Artful Dodger: You did a good job of tracing the money back to where it starts, but for some people it doesn't register until you point out that the money those taxpayers had to give up to the government came from them putting in time and effort working at their jobs.

And they are motivated for working at those jobs for the purpose of supporting themselves, which in many cases means they are paying for their own healthcare as well. Democrats are masterful at killing motivation for investment and growth, and then then wonder why businesses are holding on to their money and not investing it. It's not like they want to stall their own growth or hold themselves back. They would be investing it jobs and their own futures if the government would ease off and stop raiding their piggy banks anytime they felt like it.

Even a thief has to work at getting his free money. But we've made it easier (not to mention legal) for some people to get their free money than it is for a thief to get his.

And of course there are those who will remain "unenlightend" no matter what you tell them. They don't know and don't care to know... all that matters to them is that they get their free whatevers and for whatever reason... they don't want to be bothered with knowing anything.

Actually Mr President, no one does. They appear every day like magic, from nowhere... which means you shouldn't have to pay for them, because they were free to begin with!


whoop whoop whoop whoop, none of it makes any difference, and anything goes... until it's all gone.

Bwild: [ it does when the religion is perfect harmony. ]

Okay then, how about this... have you considered seeking inner peace and abundant flatulence through perfect hominy?

Artful Dodger: [ Dems Warned Against Certifying Obama Eligible For White House ]

This is why I believe that many Democrats who know this is a problem are secretly hoping for Obama to lose the election. If this is going to be an issue for them, and it looks like it will be, then I believe they would prefer it to be an issue after the election and not before. But if Obama is re-elected, then the problem just becomes worse for them, because of the very real possibility of not being able to continue fooling the general public and keep up the pretense of poo pooing so called "birthers" or "conspiracy nuts". Having the fraud exposed now after covering it up for four solid years is worse (for them) than having it come out later. And worse yet is if Obama is re-elected and it all comes home to roost half way through a second term. After Obama is long gone they can all claim they didn't know, but it would also mean selecting a few of their own to blame for it and have them suffer the consequences. No matter how you cut it, or how it all turns out, there is no scenario that I can see where the Democrats come out of this smelling like a rose. It stinks, but I don't think most Americans know yet just how badly it stinks.

Then you will hear the people who have been mocking "birthers" and calling them conspiracy nuts claim they didn't know, and that there was no way they could have known. I don't feel like waiting until I hear that, so I'll just go on record now to say BULL to that and just get it over with.

Bwld and Uber: religious atheists

All I was saying was any higher intelligence other than ours would necessarily have to be in the form of an alien race from outer space, IF there is no God. I happen to believe God is the highest intelligence that exists, but I haven't forgotten what I believed when I was an atheist. So let's be logical about this... if there is no God, no spiritual reality, only a material universe, and assuming we are the highest intelligence found on THIS panet, but not the highest intelligence in the universe, then in what other form could that higher intelligence possibly exist?

And please don't try telling me you believe in the possibility of a higher plane of existence, because that just opens the door to the possibility of there being a God. Mixing and matching conflicting philosophies doesn't make for any kind of convincing argument.

As for religious atheists, sure, I can believe that. You don't have to believe in a God to be religious. But I don't see how being a religious atheist changes the fact that athiests don't believe in a God or gods... the word "religious" does not cancel out the word "atheist".

mckinley: [Anyone who says they don't google to back up anything in depth here is telling a big Ryan. So stop Ryaning. :D]

When you said you were undecided, were you telling a big Ryan? If you voted for Obama 4 years ago and intend to vote for him again, then why be ashamed to say so? Or simply not say so.

I haven't said who I'm voting for, and have no intention to say who I'm voting for, but I think it's just as obvious how I'll be voting as it is how you will be voting.

You told me who were voting for when you first said that you were undecided. Seriously, do you expect me to believe that I knew who you'd be voting for before you did? I think you were telling a "Clinton" when you said you were undecided.

Bwild: How is it ignorant to use a word that describes how many people define themselves? It's the only word I know of that means someone who does not believe in God's existence. If there is a better word for it then I would like to know. It's not a dirty word, it's just a word with a specific meaning.

When I was an atheist I had no problem being identified as someone who did not believe in a God, so I don't know why anyone else would have a problem with it. I don't see why it would bother anyone, but the fact is it does bother a lot of people... especially atheists... ???

Before your post showed up I thought about looking for a word in some other language that means the same thing, but unless you mean something other than what I understand the word to mean, it almost seems pointless to buffer it with a word no one is familiar with. I'd only be doing it to keep from offending the people who already don't mind being identified as not believing in God. Seriously, does that make any sense?

By the way, what do you mean by religious? What is a 'religious' atheist, and how is he different from other atheists?

Atheists believe the only possible intelligence higher than our own can only be found in an alien race from outer space... getting in our face, and making earth their place to set up base, to give chase to other aliens who might be considering earth for themselves... good intentions notwithstanding.

rod03801: Nope. I was expecting a response but I didn't see it coming from you. Apparently my mentalist abilities are way off today. I was actually waiting for someone else so I could tell him that it's not him, because I can't picture him in a plaid skirt and knee high socks... and even if I could I wouldn't want to. lol

And by the way, I wasn't thinking of you as an atheist either. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe in his existence. A distaste for the Bible doesn't automatically make you an atheist. I avoided cracking open a Bible, any Bible, for a long time. And one big difference between my conversion and CS Lewis is I've never been able to entirely shake off that "mouse searching for the cat" feeling. CS Lewis describes it as finally surrendering to it. But the way I was raised doesn't allow for surrender, and can be summed up in a line from the movie Galaxy Quest... "Never give up, never surrender!"

(V): [Now it seems in the US that the Bible is being used to decide policy and or allegiances.]

It doesn't seem that way to me, but for someone who denounces religion you seem strangely preoccupied with religious matters. I was encouraged to not believe in God while I was growing up, so I honestly cannot relate to anyone who harbors bitter catholic school memories. I was so firmly rooted in atheism I can honestly say I had no reaction at all towards people who believed in God... it just wasn't something I could relate to one way or the other.

Several years ago I spoke to someone from my home town who also went to catholic school, until he entered public high school. He knew that I had become a Christian, but was surprised that I was still a Christian. And I mean genuinely surprised. He said, "You still believe in that?" I could tell he didn't mean it as a put down, but I was surprised that he was surprised.

Anyway, I've seen the same kind bitterness towards religion you have in other people who've attended catholic schools. In fact, it's become so obvious to me that I believe I've spotted at least one other person at this board who fits that profile.

mckinley: [Wasn't Clinton great last night?]

Of course he was. Clinton is great every night.

Artful Dodger: You have to give Bill credit for one thing though. He did manage to silence the feminists during his administration. and all he had to do to accomplish that was simply be himself.

The Col: "Is this what you're talking about?"

That was a funny youtube clip, but no, that's not what I was talking about.

However it is funny whenever I see Republicans trying to explain something to a Democrat. On the one hand they really don't want to talk down to them as though they are talking to a 5 year old, but on the other hand they would like for the Democrats to understand what they are saying. It can be a difficult and often daunting task just to communicate even the simplest of messages. I don't envy Republican politicians one little bit... I wouldn't have the patience to deal with wanna be morons who refuse to understand even though they are able to. I know I'm supposed to suffer fools gladly, but I still haven't gotten there yet in my spiritual journey. Right now I can only pray that God gives me the strength to endure the nonsense I see at this board. Someday I may be able to just let it all slide off my back and continue to focus on what is important, and not be bothered by fools who think I can be distracted by anything that moves or makes noise, thereby losing my focus.

But anyway, no, that's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about is what I was talking about.

The Col: The draft ended in 1973, and if anyone has been sending teenagers off to war over the past 4 years it has been the Democrats. As for the sanctity of life, Democrats have shown extraordinary compassion for every known form of life other than their own. So it's entirely understandable that you would have trouble understanding some Republicans.

Artful Dodger: [Did you watch the Dems convention where they were voting on putting the name "God" back into their platform?]

I misunderstood what I heard on the radio this morning. I thought the Dems were "voting" (if you can call it that) to leave out recognition of God and Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel, so I was surprised to hear about the booing. Now it makes sense. I believe it was part of their platform 4 years ago, so I wonder what has changed between then and now? hmmmmm, I wonder....

Oh wait, I get it now. It changed!! You know, hope and change? They wanted to make some big changes, and hoped no one would catch on before the next election.

(V): [... Lest we forget the past and what has happened when in 'Christian' countries the church was the state.]

It wasn't forgotten here when we declared the state had to keep it's hands off the church. This was to insure there would be no state controlled religion as existed at that time in England. I don't know what your own country's documents say about that, but you are repeating a myth about a "separation" that doesn't exist in the consitution. In our document it was intended to keep the state from taking over religion and telling people how they must worship, not to keep religious people from participating in government. Do you really not see the difference?

Iamon lyme: I can't remember if I saw the Benny Hill look alike last night or the night before. I think that may have been the night before. I'm not kidding, I thought I had tuned into the Benny Hill Show... that's right, now I remember, the real Benny Hill didn't show up until last night. LOL

Artful Dodger: I haven't been watching the convention. I didn't watch the Republican convention either. But I did happen to see Clint Eastwood begin to talk when channel surfing, so I watched that.

Last night I was channel surfing again and thought I saw Benny Hill in drag, but then realised it was someone speaking at the Democrat convention. From what I hear it was a genuine love fest last night... thrills running up both legs for some of the folks there. Any time I think I feel a thrill running up my leg it's usually a bug... and a thrill running down my leg is usually bad news.

Iamon lyme: [...ever be trusted to run a legitimate and clean election.]

I meant to say legitimate and clean campaign.

But it's not just the campaigning. They've been ignoring the consitution for longer than some of you have been alive, appointed people to offices with little or no representation or oversight (or accountability) and on local levels work to overturn measures voted on... and then putting other measures to be voted on several times until they get the vote they want, and then often times simply go to judges to over rule the will of the people.

The idea behind "We The People" is being ignored to the point where it could soon become meaningless.

The Democratic leadership has more to worry about than simply trying to get their guy re-elected. I think many of them are "showing" their support but secretly hoping he will lose.

But win or lose, the overarching hope will be that the controversy surrounding Obama's presidency will eventually fade away... because this time it's not just about an election. It's also about the credibility of the Democratic party, and whether they can ever be trusted to run a legitimate and clean election. I believe the fate of the party itself may be on the line... but there are ways to fix it, like renaming the party. Wouldn't really change anything except in the mind of some voters, but let's face it, it's the voters they are the most concerned about. It's all about keeping as many of the voters as they can on their side.

The Col: The Col: [using nazi propoganda techniques are not not the same as branding someone a "nazi"]

No, but claiming someone is using nazi propaganda techniques is the same as equating them with the nazi's. A Democrat quoted Goebbels, claiming the Republicans were following his advice. Goebbels was a high ranking nazi, and what I said was "...the word has already been used or alluded to..."

allude: to refer indirectly, briefly, or implicitly

Artful Dodger: A little over year ago I first heard someone predict just how nasty this election cycle would be, and he was right. Up until today I haven't heard the magic word "Nazi" used, but I learned this morning the word has already been used or alluded to (twice) when refering to Republicans. One Democrat said something to the effect that some lies can only work if it's a big enough lie. No kidding?!!

Who would have believed that someone could go an entire four years as president with the question of his birthplace hanging over his head, and with virtually no consequences? It's like letting a minor into a bar and not questioning his age until after he becomes rip roaring drunk... and then hope he leaves on his own before someone questions the management's judgement and possible liability.

Artful Dodger: See? I told ya. They know the magic words. All they need to do is to say "birther" or "conspiracy" and then poof, the problem goes away. It's magic. And yes, I know, the magic doesn't work on everyone. But I don't need to tell you that.

If Nixon could see us now I think he would feel a little better about his own downfall. Carter is already feeling better, or should be... it's hard to tell with some politicians. I have no idea how honest or not some of these guys are able to be with just themselves.

Bwild: Actually, I can believe that some people are literally able to see things that others don't. Magic Eyes pictures are a good example. The "hidden" patterns are there, but not everyone can see them. The trick to seeing the images is letting your eyes relax and let your brain "see" them... your eyes can't see it, but your brain can.

This fascinates me, because it suggests reality may be full of things we don't perceive simply because we've been trained to only see what is in front of us... but not the patterns those things may collectively form.