This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"Angstheist" is an ugly, ill-conceived word.

#161GBALoserPosted 2/9/2013 10:04:37 AM
Phoro posted...

Uh, have you?
Has *anyone* in the history of GameFAQs' Religion Board ever taken responsibility for being wrong about *anything*?
No? Then why pick on Jon for it?


I do. I don't pretend I know the will of God, nor do I expect to have some sort of eternal happy hunting ground. I go around on a day to day basis expecting to have failed miserably in my search for faith, and if my eternity is what ever icky place people say I'm going, then fine.
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#162fudrickPosted 2/9/2013 10:22:16 AM
Phoro posted...
Uh, have you?
Has *anyone* in the history of GameFAQs' Religion Board ever taken responsibility for being wrong about *anything*?
No? Then why pick on Jon for it?


Yes, I have
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#163JonWood007Posted 2/9/2013 11:01:23 AM

I've also seen people accuse him of speaking for all atheist or against all theists but I honestly didn't see where that was coming from either. He was just stating what he thinks, he never claimed to be the face of atheism or whatever


I really wasn't trying to. I was mostly speaking for myself and atheists who happened to agree with me (and I'd argue a portion of those who call themselves atheists would). People are really reading too much into my posts, which is why I'm pulling the "nitpicking" card. I feel like people calling me out for overly broad word usages...WHICH EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD USES AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER.

I just don't see how this is wrong OR a "tactic." Unless there are Christians here that will deny that thousands of Christian sects exist, that they follow EVERYTHING the Bible says at all times, and there are never conflicting interpretations. In addition to never once disagreeing with something the Bible says either.


Pretty much. One of the reasons I became an atheist is because I realized drawing from the Bible doesn't mean anything, since you can support almost any position from the Bible. It really loses any authoritativeness that it has on the subject because no one can agree on what the Bible actually means. It ultimately turns into "this is my opinion, but here are some Bible verses to back it up." Eventually, I'm just like, nah man, I don't speak for God, I can't speak for God, and people who do claim to speak for God are wrong, so I'm gonna speak for myself based on an educated opinion i formed on the subject at hand.

I'll tell you what is offensive, telling someone that an idea with no basis in reality demands as much respect as something with mounds of evidence. I'll respect the person but I don't need to respect there beliefs when to me they are in many cases laughable and in others downright evil.


To be honest, if I was that closed minded I wouldnt even be here, I would go to r/atheism. The thing is, I come here to see what opinions Christians can come up with, and see if I'm convinced by them. I'm not. And like said above, I'm not going to give unfounded opinions respect they don't deserve. Would you respect someone's opinion if they said the world is flat? I respect your right to your opinion, regardless of what it is, but in the free market of opinions, no opinion is above being criticized. A bad idea is a bad idea, and I don't understand why I need to tiptoe around it because it's part of a religion. To quote Voltaire: http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2012/09/to-learn-who-rules-over-you-voltaire.jpeg

Also, it's not like I'm going up to random Christians and going nananana, your god isn't real and you're wrong. I'm debating on a religion board, which is supposed to be an appropriate place to discuss such things. If we're not going to call out ideas we think are wrong or bad, we might as well not even have a discussion. You may be wondering what about you calling me out, but let's look at what you're calling me out on: word usage. You guys are totally missing the point I'm trying to convey here. Even after clarifying what I mean by authoritative, you're still attacking me with your definition of the word. Words do have multiple meanings in different contexts. I will even admit by certain definitions of the word, the Bible is authoritative. Just not in the context I was using it in. The thing isnt peer reviewed, it's wrong on a number of things, and 99.9%+ of Christians use it inconsistently, even most of those folks who claim to be sola scriptura. Heck, I'd argue it's impossible to use consistently because it contradicts itself, depending on what you use to cite your opinion/practice.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#164JonWood007Posted 2/9/2013 11:01:40 AM
Faust and bratt for the mother****ing win.
Jon, I don't know how you put up with the underhanded insults and overbearing arrogance for page after page like that. You're a masochist, and I love you.


Lol thanks.

I would challenge this assertion, but that's because my Bible is older than the religion you're talking about.

Then again, my religion isn't sola scriptura.


It's tricky. The religion came first, but in the case of the Bible, canon was decided by a small number of Christians, with most having no say in the matter. There are a ton of writings now considered heretical that many early Christians accepted as truth. Obviously the Bible did not speak for them. And now today, the religion is more based on the Bible, but as mentioned before, its applied inconsistently. To say that because X person accepts the Bible authoritatively means everything has the potential to be authoritative on something. Not to mention, as mentioned, I was referring to authoritativeness from a truth perspective, like in the way peer reviews papers are authoritative on their subjects. The Bible, in this context, really isn't authoritative on anything.

Again, you must pay attention to the context I'm using the word in. You use the word differently than me, we're gonna have misunderstandings like this.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#165Hustle KongPosted 2/9/2013 11:18:52 AM
fudrick posted...
Phoro posted...
Uh, have you?
Has *anyone* in the history of GameFAQs' Religion Board ever taken responsibility for being wrong about *anything*?
No? Then why pick on Jon for it?


Yes, I have


As have I.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#166PhoroPosted 2/9/2013 8:07:38 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
fudrick posted...
Phoro posted...
Uh, have you?
Has *anyone* in the history of GameFAQs' Religion Board ever taken responsibility for being wrong about *anything*?
No? Then why pick on Jon for it?


Yes, I have


As have I.


Oh? And not just minute details and the like? Big issues too? Because most of your posts are so authoritatively worded it's like we should all just accept them as absolute truths. And should anyone dare contend with you, your posts would have them swept aside as so much trash.
And I actually *agree* with HK and fudrick on the issues 90% of the time. You're both incredibly smart people (yes, I easily concede, much brighter than me), so why go to the trouble of being dicks about it too? As bratt said, it's like a circlejerk with a few of you guys. And, almost inexplicably, you're nearly always ganging up on fellow atheists (not that one or two don't sometimes deserve it - Jon's not one of them).
---
You're killin' me, Smalls.
#167SuibomPosted 2/9/2013 8:22:02 PM
Phoro, don't you think it's a good idea for each group to "police" their own?
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#168JonWood007Posted 2/9/2013 8:25:10 PM
Suibom posted...
Phoro, don't you think it's a good idea for each group to "police" their own?


I don't. As HK was so easy to point out in other topics, not everyone part of a group is necessarily on the same page.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#169PhoroPosted 2/9/2013 8:33:10 PM
Suibom posted...
Phoro, don't you think it's a good idea for each group to "police" their own?


Sure, but policing and degrading/humiliating are very different things. Trying to make Jon look like an ass in this topic over his preferred use of the word 'lie' is beyond the atheists simply regulating themselves.
Creationists often call evolution a 'lie' within a similar context, and I can't say I've ever seen that made into a huge deal among other moderate (or whatever the term is) Christians or theists. It's petty, it's splitting hairs, and there's no reason for the reaction it received.
---
You're killin' me, Smalls.
#170PhoroPosted 2/9/2013 8:38:21 PM(edited)
JonWood007 posted...
Suibom posted...
Phoro, don't you think it's a good idea for each group to "police" their own?


I don't. As HK was so easy to point out in other topics, not everyone part of a group is necessarily on the same page.


Good point. Just as there are hundreds of denominations or versions of Christianity, there are similarly many different 'types' of atheism, and they won't see eye to eye on everything. My post was from a broader perspective.
---
You're killin' me, Smalls.