[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

richc - Member

"So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?"

Everyone has an Ego, regardless of your own personal beliefs, its part of how we are believed to be wired up to survive, but you need to be careful not to confuse 'Ego' with 'Egotist' as whilst they are related they don't mean exactly the same thing.

Hence the whole enlightenment thing of getting over being totally focused on yourself and your survival, and learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

You could have just said 'yes'.

But cougar, you and saxon rider and others who have singled me out have been happy to bandy round the insults, you just dress them up.

I guess, that is a 'Yes' it's OK to call Atheists and Theists egotists, because everyone is. Unless someone on here claims not to have an Ego?

Next thing people will be thinking that their shit doesn't smell.

It's a bloody big guide to find something that's omnipresent. (-:

But cougar, you and saxon rider and others who have singled me out have been happy to bandy round the insults, you just dress them up.

Whatever. I'm not entering into a debate with you about this. I've made my point and asked you to play nicely (and explained why), so you can take it on board or ignore me as you see fit.

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid, hm?

This statement attempts to use logic to tell me that I am stupid for not being able to call other people stupid without it being taken as an insult.

It assumes that insulting people is a bad thing, well I maintain that offence is something that is taken, not given. You could have offended me by calling me stupid, but you didn't.

For example if you believe that 1+1 =3 (without any evidence to prove it, and despite evidence to the contrary) then surely you must be either: poorly informed, mad or stupid. Correct?

So if you went around proselytising this I would be compelled to put you right, by starting with showing you the error of your ways, if you continue to maintain this is true because you have faith, then I have to tell you that you are either poorly informed, mad or stupid. Which is exactly what happened on this thread.

richc - Member
I guess, that is a 'Yes' it's OK to call Atheists and Theists egotists, because everyone is. Unless someone on here claims not to have an Ego?

Egotist=/=ego. What do you mean by

However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego)

Next thing people will be thinking that their shit doesn't smell.

Ridiculous. I simply reject your assertion that

learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

requires either religion, religious texts or faith.

Whatever. I'm not entering into a debate with you about this. I've made my point and asked you to play nicely (and explained why), so you can take it on board or ignore me as you see fit.

So its Ok for you to call me stupid but not for me to call others either stupid, crazy or badly informed? Are you God?

I think I shall ignore you.

I maintain that offence is something that is taken

I agree, being offended is a personal choice. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to "be offensive" either.

if you believe that 1+1 =3

It does, for sufficiently large values of '1'.

I agree, being offended is a personal choice. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to "be offensive" either.

So Mr Pot, it's kettle here, is it Ok for you to "be offensive" but not me?

It does, for sufficiently large values of '1'.

Yes, but I am talking about integers and you know what I mean, I thought earlier you were in the atheist camp but this kind of obfuscation to try and score points has me somewhat worried..

So its Ok for you to call me stupid

I didn't say that. I said: "If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid" Ie, I'm only calling you stupid if you're unable to have a discussion without being offensive. Are you unable to do that?

I think I shall ignore you.

Fine.

Toys - your use of language has been rather provocative - both cougar and myself are basically on the same side as you and both have asked you if you could tone it down a bit. The theists are fragile and get easily upset when challenged - if you consider them to be mentally feeble then some kid gloves might be useful?

E

veryone has an Ego, regardless of your own personal beliefs, its part of how we are believed to be wired up to survive,

It is an outdated word used by freud to describe [ metaphorically] the battle within each person.[ id, ego and super ego]. It is not really widely accepted by anyone today within psychology though it is widely used by lay people. Ther eis not brain structiure that is "ego". It is in essence a belief by Freud and his claim is untestable. It is more like religion and faith than it is like a fact.

Hence the whole enlightenment thing of getting over being totally focused on yourself and your survival, and learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego)

So to save myself and life for ever in paradise I first need to accept that I am not important as that is how I save myself and live for ever.

Saving yourself for an eternity in happiness cannot be considered to be a selfless act however you wish to try and argue it is… the motivation is, quite literally, to save yourself - self interest so presumably "egotistical"

I didn't say that. I said: "If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid" Ie, I'm only calling you stupid if you're unable to have a discussion without being offensive. Are you unable to do that?

This is exacltly the same as me saying if you can't get with the logic of only believing in that which you can prove rather than believing something is true because you cannot disprove it then you are stupid.

Teej I get the point. I got it from the beginning, which is patently obvious considering I hastily and heavily revised my definitions throughout. Some people just choose to be insulted as means to delegitimize the other side. Everyone has been offensive in some way. I am just more honest about it, and Cougar unfortunatly hoisted himself so I coudln't let him get away with it..

Its a guide to help people find God, written by people who have managed to do it themselves

When asked by a member of his audience "I walk with jesus christ every day of my life, why do you insist he doesn't exist?", Richard Dawkins said: "I understand your deep belief, but you are having a hallucination".

Egotist-ism is a manifestation of Ego, hence everyone does have a degree of egotist-ism. Unless of course you are one of those people with non smelly poo.

because to me that sounds like "the only reason you haven't found a god is because you're too self centred."

I think that is one of the central tenants of enlightment, is once you stop being self centred (ie: focusing on surviving right now) you open your mind up to its full potential, and this is a belief that has permeated our recorded history and has happened in cultures which have had zero contact with each other. I would add I am not sure if that then links with finding god, or its just our unconscious desire for there to be something more .......

learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

requires either religion, religious texts or faith.

Well no it doesn't actually, you don't need a teacher/guide/religion to find god however its much easier with one. All religions comment on exception people who can do this without help from teachers.

Same as everything really, if you want to get good at something its much easier with a teacher than it is figuring it out on your own.

Egotist-ism is a manifestation of Ego, hence everyone does have a degree of egotist-ism. Unless of course you are one of those people with non smelly poo

I know what you mean in layman terms and we talk about it but there is no physical stucture nor actual ego ..it is just a metaphor.
My poo is real It smells pretty much like your argument 😉

I am talking about integers and you know what I mean,

But isn't it interesting that what you thought a moment ago was immutable fact suddenly turns out not to be the case. It's almost as though people could have different points of view and both be right, isn't it.

I thought earlier you were in the atheist camp but this kind of obfuscation to try and score points has me somewhat worried..

I'm very much in the atheist camp. I think organised religion as a concept is holding back our development both as a culture and as a species, and I genuinely don't understand why otherwise sensible people insist on clinging on to these outdated superstitions.

However, I try not to be an arse about it. It makes for more interesting discussion that way.

And again....

[img] [/img]

Ooh, this is in danger of getting closed down before it makes the magic 20.

I think we aree now arguing over what form of 'Biblical exegesis' we take. There is the 'rational' version where the text are considered to be written entirely by people according to what they saw and the more traditional 'revealed exegesis' where the texts are meant to have been 'inspired' by God in some way. What form this inspiration takes is of course up for debate and a matter of faith

But isn't it interesting that what you thought a moment ago was immutable fact suddenly turns out not to be the case. It's almost as though people could have different points of view and both be right, isn't it.

No because you can easily prove 1+1=2 with intergers or 1+1 = nearly 3 with real numbers. Has anyone yet come up with a similarly excellent and demonstrateable proof of god?

However, I try not to be an arse about it. It makes for more interesting discussion that way.

Apart from of course calling me stupid, and an arse? Thats all fine then isn't it?

Apart from of course calling me... an arse?

I didn't call you (or anyone) anything of the sort. I was talking about myself. Are you so desperate to argue with me that you're now resorting to making things up?

You implied I was an arse. You see this is the dishonesty I was talking about. I will call you an arse and it's an insult, you will imply I'm an arse and it isn't. Otherwise the statement

However I try not to be an arse about it

The funny thing is Mr Kettle, is that now, as you are actually being an arse, you have done all of the things you berated me for both generally and specifically. 🙂

Junkyard, your response smacks of the default 'prove it' argument that people use when they don't like what they are reading

Meaningless to you, maybe. But any mistaken implication derived is your failing, not mine.

you are actually being an arse

... in your opinion.

ha ha, that was lame, sorry I'm not insulted by you calling me an arse, I'm just pointing out the facts.

Junkyard, your response smacks of the default 'prove it' argument that people use when they don't like what they are reading

Probably because it's the right thing to do, I expect they don't like it as they can't see any evidence for it being true.

but was under the impression that the concept of the Bible being allegorical is a relatively modern thing.

I don't think so. Given that Jesus used parables to illustrate points it is not unreasonable to assume that that was an accepted way of passing a message at that time. In fact even back with all the fuss over Galilleo it was clear that there was a huge discussion over the interpretion of the Bile in the light of 'modern' science so there really isn't anything new here

sorry I'm not insulted by you calling me an arse, I'm just pointing out the facts.

You're pointing out your interpretation of the facts, which I've already explained are erroneous. Yet you still cling to them. Why is that?

Anyway, this is getting tedious, so I'm oot. There's little point discussing things with you if you're determined to argue with people who essentially agree with you.

An allegory is something said in a different way whereas parables is what you keep in your underpants

Junkyard, your response smacks of the default 'prove it' argument that people use when they don't like what they are reading

Have you got anything other than ad hominem and false conclusions to explain your position better?
What I like is irrelevant [ I would like there to be a god who righted all wrongs , let me live for ever and punished wicked people but this wont make it happen or true]
As for attacking me for asking for proof is their a better alternative.
Again ego is a layman term it is a metaphor there is no ego like there is a liver and a heart. We both know you cannot prove an ego [ and no one can prove a negative]. You can talk away about it if you like but this wont make it real.
So assert away without evidence and attack me when I ask for evidence to support your view.

You're pointing out your interpretation of the facts, which I've already explained are erroneous. Yet you still cling to them. Why is that?

perhaps you would care to elaborate what

However I try not to be an arse about it

There's little point discussing things with you if you're determined to argue with people who essentially agree with you.

Mr Kettle, I am not determined to argue with you, I just think it's a little hypocritcal and somewhat trite to berate me for "being offensive" whilst doing the same thing yourself.

You appear to have missed a post. Here it is again.

Cougar - Member

Anyway, this is getting tedious, so I'm oot.

I've told you what I meant, I'm not doing it again. If you choose to deliberately misinterpret something in order to, as you say, point score, that's your lookout.

@ Toys mleh what are you trying to achieve here [ that is rhetorical resist the urge to reply]

You appear to have missed a post. Here it is again.

Thats funny, you just came back?

come on guys - you are letting the theists off the hook here

Oh em gee Toys and Cougar can we arrange some sort of Thunderdome to sort this out?

[img] [/img]

@ Toys mleh what are you trying to achieve here [ that is rhetorical resist the urge to reply]

sorry can't resist.

I want cougar to either prove that that my behaviour is somehow different from his. (Ie I am offensive for calling people stupid and he is not for calling me stupid) or to admit that he was also being what he accused me of. I back down all the time when I am proved wrong, that is the point of discussion, but Cougar has not demonstrated that he was not being offensive when he called me stupid (and implied I was an arse) when I am happy to admit I did call people stupid, which cougar thinks is "being offensive" .

Teej the theists went away ages ago..

Lifer STW is the thunderdome!

I want cougar to either prove blah blah

I want a kitten.

Given that Jesus used parables to illustrate points

There is no evidence to suggest that the character in the bible called jesus ever existed.

The biblical character is, anyway, a cartoon masochistic self-harmer with delusions of grandeur who loathed his father.

... and also, an arse.

Mr Woppit, from that august publication [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus ]wikipedia[/url]

[b]Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea[/b], who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.Scholars have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as a rabbi, a charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.

But the historians have yet to prove he was actually the son of God.

sorry can't resist.

Scholars have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus,

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Thats OK JY, I only write stuff to entertain myself.

Mr Woppit, yes it is dodgy ground, but to be honest that is the least of the theists worries, I am happy to believe that a bloke called Jesus exists in as much as I believe in any other historical character.

... and in the interests of even-handedness:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/11/new-robert-spencer-book-coming-next-spring-did-muhammad-exist.html

Actually Mr Woppit, having now read much of my own link and yours, I think jesus existence is without foundation outside of the christian texts..

The jesus religion was just one of several competing with each other in the classical world at that time - Mithraism, for instance - which all shared the same story line. Prediction/fullfillment/miracles/dying to save others/going to heaven etc etc...

The only reason the xtian fairy story gained traction, was because the Roman Emperor Constantine adopted it and enforced it as a state religion.

Nothing to do with any "god" intervention...

It's gone a bit quiet. Have the faithfull been raptured already?

We scared them off with irrefutable logic.

I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God,for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' But,' says ...Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

That is a tasy worm there Teej, a few fish will be along any minute.

your use of language has been rather provocative - both cougar and myself are basically on the same side as you and both have asked you if you could tone it down a bit. The theists are fragile and get easily upset when challenged - if you consider them to be mentally feeble then some kid gloves might be useful?

FLOUNCE!! 😉

That is a tasy worm there Teej, a few fish will be along any minute.

Douglas Adams, again. For his next trick, man proves that black is white, and gets killed on a zebra crossing.

Oy woppit, stop trying to draw me back in! This is definitely, absolutely my last word on the matter! 🙂

That barnsleymitch turns up on these threads and wipes the bloody floor with all of us; he doesn't care what anyone thinks of what he believes, and fully recognises that his adherence to religion can be questioned and stripped bare, but it doesn't matter to him.

...and that's really what religion or a lack of it is all about, whether you believe in it or not; it's about what people think and how they act towards one another.

Good on yer BM.

Barnesleymitch - you missed an earlier post. That one you object to was supposed to be light in tone and taking the piss out of toys to an extent ie mocking his view of the religious so if he tinks they are feeble minded then basic politness and a sense of fair play would be not to be rough with them - like you would treat a child - but as ever with hindsight can be taken in other ways

the post you may have missed is

TandemJeremy - Member

toys - I read your posts - just nowt to respond to apart from to say I agree with you basically but maybe ease off on the pejorative language?

I got a metaphorical kicking from (IIRC) Barnsleymitch for intemperate language and accepted it as its not right to insult moderate non proselytising folk like him as well

Which I think shows I did at least try to accept your similar point made before and to try to take the pejorative language out of my part in the debate

As crikey says respect to you for your attitude and thanks for the second metaphorical kicking * goes of to lick wounds*

Toys - your use of language has been rather provocative - both cougar and myself are basically on the same side as you and both have asked you if you could tone it down a bit.......

Very sensible advice, doesn't do the Athiest argument any favours at all......

Oh wait a minute...... What's this. ........

.....The theists are fragile and get easily upset when challenged

You ruined an otherwise valid point by being... How can I put this..... An arse.... Oh well. Nice try 🙄

.
.
.
.
I started out on this thread as an Atheist.

But to be perfectly honest, the Athiests that are only really interested in insulting people and making themselves out to be Superior because they don't believe are totally turning me off Atheism.

I'm off to church to see what it's all about.

Fair enough Jezzer - pint?

man up all of you. If you believe then surely god will smite me. 🙂

"but it doesn't matter to him." .... or me

The amount of times I've typed a reply, to then held back incase I'm perceived to be peaching.

Mr BM is an inspiration... A belief in God and woolly jumpers... I wonder which came first for him.

Toys... no need, your doing a fine job yourself.... but maybe that's the point ??

[img] [/img]

But to be perfectly honest, the Athiests that are only really interested in insulting people and making themselves out to be Superior because they don't believe are totally turning me off Atheism.

You decide to abandon your beliefs becasue a few people who hold the same beliefs as you are a bit rude?

Toys... no need, your doing a fine job yourself..

Ro5sey, I dont get it, I have to say I feel thoroughly unsmote.

man up all of you. If you believe then surely god will smite me

Good lord is this one still going?

Have we all come to some form of cencesus yet?

A provisional draft?

I'm afraid I asked someone if they'd kindly try not to be a little less abrasive, and the wheels came off. There was a decent conversation in there for a while. Sorry about that.

]

The amount of times I've typed a reply, to then held back incase I'm perceived to be peaching

[img] [/img]

try not to be a little less abrasive

?

In there... I'm not delving 'in there' to find it, but nice.

I know the answer anyway cos I follow God on Facebook... 8)

Sods, typo. "Try to be a little less abrasive" I meant, of course.

But managed to be just as abrasive yourself. Captain Piety.

Sods, typo. "Try to be a little less abrasive" I meant, of course.

Thought so, but on a 21 page STW thread about the [non]existence of a god i didn't feel i could be sure 😉

For example if you believe that 1+1 =3 (without any evidence to prove it, and despite evidence to the contrary) then surely you must be either: poorly informed, mad or stupid. Correct?

Or the fourth option - I know something you don't. Don't ever miss that one, it's very very important.

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid

He didn't call you stupid, he equated a certain behaviour with a certain level of intelligence. It's up to you to negotiate that link!

Or to put it another way, stupid is a stupid does.

But anywya let's not let that feud spoil a good theological thread. It's putting off some important posters from whom I would love to hear further contribution.

You decide to abandon your beliefs becasue a few people who hold the same beliefs as you are a bit rude?

Was that not a joke?

i didn't feel i could be sure

Good point, well made.

Have we all come to some form of cencesus yet?

Any form of what?

Or the fourth option - I know something you don't. Don't ever miss that one, it's very very important.

I think I accounted for that elswhere, but the definition does predicate you not having demonstratable proof, therefore you cannot know something I don't? If you did have proof it wouldn't be faith and you wouldn't be stupid.

He didn't call you stupid, he equated a certain behaviour with a certain level of intelligence. It's up to you to negotiate that link!

Or to put it another way, stupid is a stupid does.

It's the same as calling someone stupid.

It's not a feud, I don't have any bad feeling, it's jsut a fact that cougar told me not to be rude and he was rude int he process. Ironic, and hypocritcal.

but the definition does predicate you not having demonstratable proof, therefore you cannot know something I don't?

This is getting philosophical now, isn't it?

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

It's the same as calling someone stupid.

No, it's not. It's actually an invitation to think about the wisdom of what you're saying or doing.

This is getting philosophical now, isn't it?

If say, you are colour blind, and I tell you a green ball and a red ball are different colours, is there any way I can conclusively prove it to you?

Thats interesting I'll have to think about that for a minute.

Yes by measuring wavelength. Try again.

No, it's not. It's actually an invitation to think about the wisdom of what you're saying or doing.

This is ironic , if I get your meaning correctly, as you could say thats all I said.

Yes by measuring wavelength. Try again.

How do you know the machine is correct?

How do they measure the wavelength of light that isn't in the visible spectrum?

try again.

cougar told me not to be rude and he was rude int he process. Ironic, and hypocritcal.

I'm sorry you felt I was rude, as I've repeatedly explained and you've repeatedly ignored, that wasn't the intention. It was a simple request because I felt you were making atheists look bad (as I explained) and it really didn't need two pages of deconstruction. Do you think we can stop now please? I'm utterly bored out of my mind and wish I'd never said anything.

I know how such machines work, that's not the issue. How would you know it wasn't all a conspiracy to trick you?

You wouldn't - that's my point. It is of course a means to illustrate a point and perhaps open another line of philosophical debate, not an actual discussion about instrumentation.