I AM ALL I AM wrote:
You're just desperately trying to create an argument when there was not one in the first place IAAIA.

I'm not one to defend 'religion' by any means (I'm usually the entire opposite), however if you wish to quote people as having similar views as yourself it cannot be said to be appealing to authority. (CS Lewis was not the pope, not a king, not a political leader)

He also quite distinctly said 'as I understand it' -this means in his opinion.

I don't even debate religion tbh, I don't partake in it. I've nothing against other people believing whatever the hell they like though, including little green men in flying saucers, david icke, or even more extreme stuff such as austerity will work.

andyh wrote:
G'day Andyh.

The only desperation appears to be you attempting to convince me of what you think about my reasons for posting.

Thanks for the offer, I prefer my own reasons for posting what I post instead of those you attempt to attach to me.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
You're welcome to them but you won't get far with it, lol

andyh wrote:
I appreciate your post very much, not least of all for this reason.

It might suprise some people to learn that I have long defended atheism from judgemental religious folks. My brother is an atheist but he and I enjoy discussions on a whole range of topics (he is a philosophy graduate) including ethics and morality, theology, cosmology and science. I found that he and I differ very little on most topics, even on a fundamental level and that atheists are just as morally grounded as Christians, if not more so. In fact there is little link between somebody calling themselves a Christian and them having any sort of ethics or morality. Amongst Christianity there are villains in the thousands, and they often use God's name to justify their crimes. When I was asked why I defended atheism from criticism and why I was not attempting to "save" them, I answered that it was because these Christians attempts to proselytize were bound to fail because they were not rooted in respect and love, but rather in pride and hate. Several christians were outraged at this and immediately asked for my removal from the forum (Catholic answers forum). However, I rerminded them that they were comitting two acts that their Christianity specifically forbids: judging (Mathew 7) others and speaking authorarivlely God's will.and the desitiny of souls.

( Handy hint: The next time a Catholic in Ireland tells you that you are going to Hell, remind them that the Chrurch expressly forbids them to say that and it is a myth that the RCC decrees suicides are eternally damned because they specifically say not one human can ever know what transpires between that soul ang God.)

Anyway, I got thrown off the forum obviously. Which kinda proved my point. At least before they booted me, I was able to ask them to read Paul's letters to Corinthians

The point I am trying to make is that if one is inspired by respect and affection to discuss these matters, one finds that we deepen our understanding of how each of us perceive the universe and we find more in common than we might have expected. Having a Protestant mother, a Catholic father, a Buddhist wife, and SIkh and Muslim friends certainly taught me that but none so much as my Atheist brother did. Howver, if one approaches these matters with a judgemental and disrepectful way, then unfortunately is acting through antipathy, if not hate.

You are clearly of the former and that, I believe, is why, to your own suprise, you are posting as you are.

There are other atheists that might not be so true to the values of fairness and reciprocity. While you clearly wish only for each person to have the freedom to believe whatever they wish, they perceive that they must somehow control others' belief systems. These anti-theists have more in common with religious fundamentalists than they would like to think. I am talking not only about the Cultural Revolution, but also people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. These anti-theists (or New Atheists are hardly going to persuade the religious community to renounce their faith and that is not their objective, it seems. Of course, when they talk of eradicating "religion" they often mean Christianity, or less often Islam (at least those are the chapters in The God Delusion) and I have never read or heard them mention the other world religions. I would like them to talk about Tibet, for example, but I imagine that is hardly likely.

So, anyway, thank you very much for your support. I echo your desire to have a society in which an individulal is free to believe in whatever they like and conversly not believe whatever they like.

Amen to that.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
I should explain that I was not defining Christianity but attempting to differentiate between the various forms of Christianity. Therfore, I believe that you may have misinterpreted what I wrote.

Your reasons may be born out of a concern for the use of logical fallacies, or it might be that you believe I have been unfair to certain forms of Christianity. OTOH it might also be that you object to my apologetics.

If it is the first, I hope my clarification sooths your sensibilities.
If it is the second, then I will admit to having little in common with fundamentalist Christians.
If it is the third, then you could make your case.

If it is none of the above, then I invite you to share your reasons and indeed your beliefs.

mikey mikey wrote:
Hell of a post

I guess I'm what you would call a 'soft or negative' atheist.
I don't go out of my way to diss religion but can be quite vocal if its someone trying to shove religion in my face so to speak
But the same applies with other belief systems with me such as government, economy etc.
There is more to the human mindset and beliefs than just religion its worth bearing in mind and comparing it.

My strongest belief is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Its ironic that so much of our rules of society etc are supposed to be built on that and yet so many of us don't actually put it in to practice. This disconnect (for want of a better word) and the cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze me.
Its a hell of a phsych topic

Icke's 'teachings' do have a lot in common with religion in that they offer a lifestyle, a community and a 'bad guy'. They also require a 'leap of faith' as like religion it is impossible to substantiate much of his claims.

The similarities between icke devotees and religious fundamentalists is startling - both get highly defensive when asked awkward questions, are militant in their beliefs and are imho bloody dangerous and utterly closed minded.

There are many icke appreciators as their are those with faith in god who are not militant - who do not have closed minds and who are comfortable enough in their faith/appreciation to be able to debate the anomalies without aggression or offense. Who are happy enough to say 'this is my belief I have no need to prove my beliefs to you nor to have you share them' - whilst there are others who wish everyone to believe the same as them and treat those who do not share the same beliefs as somehow inferior.

Icke has set himself up as a 'figurehead' a new 'messiah' - imho he is a fallible human who has the same vulnerabilities and less desirable qualities as everyone else - if having faith in god or in icke theories enriches your life and brings comfort. contentment and meaning it can only be a good thing - if it brings only conflict then not so great. Either way he is becoming vastly wealthy offering this alternative reality to those seeking answers in perhaps some of the wrong places. imho.

thoreau wrote:
Well he tries to.

If you watch him in the video with Luke from WAC when he is in NY at one of the occupy things, he is just another face in the crowd and it looks like he knows it.

Many of his ideas only appeal to quite a narrow 'wavelength' inside the 'truth movement' imho. (not that i like to label things with 'truth movement' or whatever label, but i dunno how else to describe it right now)

andyh wrote:


I clearly pointed out in Mikey Mikey's post where the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority is.

You respond with an ad hominem and take part of Mikey Mikey's post out of context ...

"He also quite dis­tinctly said ‘as I under­stand it’ –this means in his opin­ion."

... as opposed to ...

"(as i under­stand it from a the­o­log­i­cal POV and not the var­i­ous nutty churches around the world)."

... which shows that it doesn't "mean in his opinion" at all and it is "from a theological POV". So who is it that is "des­per­ately try­ing to cre­ate an argu­ment when there was not one in the first place" ?

It appears that you simply have an issue with me.
andyh wrote:
Corrected.

mikey mikey wrote:
G'day Mikey Mikey.

To differentiate between any two things you must first define the two things so that the differentiation can be clearly seen.

You attempted to define christianity "from a theological POV". Please point out from your post that I originally responded to if this is incorrect.

In doing so, you made an appeal to authority, stating, "I am talk­ing about the the­ol­ogy of peo­ple like C.S. Lewis in his works called Mere Chrs­tian­ity ot more mod­ern writ­ers like Abbot Christo­pher Jami­son in his works Find­ing Sanc­tary.". Please point out how this can be anything other than an appeal to authority.

My original response to you is quoted below. Considering that your response to me is about that post, maybe you would like to address it directly.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:

thoreau wrote:
G'day Thoreau.

One issue I have with fantastical beliefs is, if adherents are projecting such fantastical beliefs onto reality, how are we ever going to have peace in reality when the adherents of fantastical beliefs do not live in reality ?

@novum totally agree with you there - ickes whole set up is incredibly narcissistic and 'ickecentric' - reading some of his diatribes makes me cringe - the way he plays the martyr, the way in which he demonises anyone who disagrees with him - his inability to answer straight questions - the sycophants he surrounds himself with etc etc - then there is the whole portrayal of himself as someone who is just like the 'bloke' next door - when he has been 'famous' and admitted how he feeds of the energy of 'adulation' for nearly as long as I have been alive. Everything is designed to keep that going and people 'buy' into it - as we humans have always 'bought' into that which offers answers to the various questions. People follow icke for the same reasons some follow religions, political ideologies or celebrities imho - mini rant over haha

@iaaia - Not sure if I am going to be able to express this very well but here goes - I believe that there are several 'layers' of reality - there is that which we create for ourselves - our own little cocoons - then there is the reality imposed upon us by other people which often conflicts with our desires for our own reality - then there is the reality that is life - this reality is imposed on us by the very fabric of being - we have absolutely no control over that reality - we have a certain amount of control over the imposed by other people reality and complete control of our own reality, as such we all 'live' in reality - the trick is to find a way for those 'realities' to coexist without imposing too much on each other in a negative way.


fanatics can believe whatever they wish to makes no difference to my reality at all - but the moment an attempt is made to change my 'reality' through imposition my reality shifts from a place of relative contentment to discontent perhaps fear. I do not believe that we will ever have peace unless we can agree on not only the premise of 'do no harm' but also on what constitutes harm. religion, politics and individuals have attempted to address these questions - but getting any form of consensus from a group of animals who are programmed for self survival and therefore do not naturally always put the needs of others on the same par as themselves and with such differing needs is gonna be tricky. particularly if such a consensus is to be reached without fear, coercion or threats.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Ad hominem would be to just call you a stupid prick who likes arguing on forums for the sakes of it.
You did not clearly point out anything I'm afraid...
Like I said though, keep trying to get somewhere with it

I AM ALL I AM wrote:


You yourself said that there were many kinds of xtianity and I agree. Therefore I took the time to distinguish the one I adhere to from the various fringe factions.

Have you ever heard of the strawman fallacy?

and the nomination for the most tedious thread derail goes to.............................tension building pause....................





this one.







logic phalluses are great aren't they. awareness of them is a great tool. like all tools though they merely mirror the craftsman that holds them.

thoreau wrote: Thor since I know your already taken have you got a sister?

gue, we may agree on a lot, disagree on as much, on the whole you and i get along.



but if you do not step back from thor this fekkin instant, you and me are gonna have a serious incident......



hi thor

dubmeup wrote:

Hi Anonymous

I recently went inactive other there for those very reasons. There are still a few good people/posters, but they are incresingly drowned out beneath a wave of "awake sheeple" all bleating the same lines they've read and not taking any time to consider matters from their ouwn source of thought, and who will shout down anyone who dares to question to "approved" rhetoric. Throw in an oppressive atmospshere of fear, anger and hatred towards people and the world in general and it's just not a nice place to be anymore.

Honestly,I think - if 90% of them are the "elightened" and the hope for the world,we truly are fucked!!!!

Conspiracy doesn't matter to me anymore at all though. There are still conspiracies I believe in,but so what? None of it makes a difference to either my physical or spiritual existence. Just living in my source and being my own example, effecting the world only matters by extension of behaviour. Not sitting around talking about it

Until he turns water into Tennants Super he's just a bloke.