Comments on: Response to the Last Posting http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/ Atheism with Positivity Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:52:58 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: tearotopierge http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-301847 tearotopierge Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:33:14 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-301847 I'm the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death... I’m the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death…

]]> By: AnonyMouse http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-281741 AnonyMouse Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:04 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-281741 Oooh! How about a summary of Genesis 1-3? 1. God creates evil. 2. God creates ignorant Man. 3. God puts Man and evil into a box together. 4. Evil tricks Man. 5. God wallops Man. Oooh! How about a summary of Genesis 1-3?

1. God creates evil.
2. God creates ignorant Man.
3. God puts Man and evil into a box together.
4. Evil tricks Man.
5. God wallops Man.

]]> By: +Z’ev » Blog Archive » Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-75117 +Z’ev » Blog Archive » Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:48:59 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-75117 [...] we excise all spirit from existence or else, like Jerry Falwell and Richard Dawkins we try to force spirit into a box crafted from a literal reading of a several-millennia old [...] [...] we excise all spirit from existence or else, like Jerry Falwell and Richard Dawkins we try to force spirit into a box crafted from a literal reading of a several-millennia old [...]

]]> By: Arlen http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-75084 Arlen Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:30:33 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-75084 I agree with <strong>Autumn Harvest</strong> that this is a description of Christianity rather than "Religion," but it should also be said that this is a description of only a fairly small branch (of course, a highly vocal branch) of Christianity. I am a Christian, I grew up Christian, I've attended several churches across the country (none of them Evangelical) and only an infinitesimal percentage of Christians that I know actually believe that Genesis is literal. The vast majority trust science and evolution as much as any Atheist. It's important to remember that (at least in my mind) believing in evolution does not at all mean disbelieving in God. That said: both this picture and the Atheist one are hilarious. I agree with Autumn Harvest that this is a description of Christianity rather than “Religion,” but it should also be said that this is a description of only a fairly small branch (of course, a highly vocal branch) of Christianity. I am a Christian, I grew up Christian, I’ve attended several churches across the country (none of them Evangelical) and only an infinitesimal percentage of Christians that I know actually believe that Genesis is literal. The vast majority trust science and evolution as much as any Atheist. It’s important to remember that (at least in my mind) believing in evolution does not at all mean disbelieving in God.

That said: both this picture and the Atheist one are hilarious.

]]> By: Mriana http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-75041 Mriana Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:03:53 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-75041 <blockquote>Autumn Harvest said, October 7, 2007 at 8:25 am “The Atheist”, that’s a description of “Christianity,” not “Religion.” There are religions other than Christianity. Really! Look it up!</blockquote> Yes you are right, Autumn, and I think the one that comes closest to Evolution is (I can't believe I'm saying this after studying it and how weird it can get) Hinduism with its idea that there was some entity that felt lonely so it split in two, became male and female, had sex, and the universe was born. While it too has obvious unanswered questions or maybe I haven't found the answers it has, it's splitting in two sounds like an atom or something. I don't know if Buddhism, Jainism, or other Eastern religions kept this idea or not when they developed, but I find it interesting that such a concept was arrived at before the Theory of Evolution or the discovery of the atom. Shankara gets weird after that, but I think he was the one who explained it that way IF I remember right. Although I will admit there are times he is a bit Gnostic when he says Brahman is in everything, yet it is not everything- ie Brahman is in the table but it is not the table. Which ironically reminds me of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas verses 3 and 77 (I don't want to get involved in a chicken or the egg discussion about religion). The list goes on concerning the Gnosticism within Hinduism (and the prof says I'm not off thinking this), but it all goes off topic. Yet the idea of giving birth to the universe sort of supports the idea of Brahman being in everything, but it is not everything. Sort of like my parents are in me (genetically) but they are not me. While I do not believe there is any actual science in the Hindu religion, it is interesting how the people came up with these ideas before science as we know it today developed.

Autumn Harvest said,

October 7, 2007 at 8:25 am

“The Atheist”, that’s a description of “Christianity,” not “Religion.” There are religions other than Christianity. Really! Look it up!

Yes you are right, Autumn, and I think the one that comes closest to Evolution is (I can’t believe I’m saying this after studying it and how weird it can get) Hinduism with its idea that there was some entity that felt lonely so it split in two, became male and female, had sex, and the universe was born. While it too has obvious unanswered questions or maybe I haven’t found the answers it has, it’s splitting in two sounds like an atom or something.

I don’t know if Buddhism, Jainism, or other Eastern religions kept this idea or not when they developed, but I find it interesting that such a concept was arrived at before the Theory of Evolution or the discovery of the atom. Shankara gets weird after that, but I think he was the one who explained it that way IF I remember right. Although I will admit there are times he is a bit Gnostic when he says Brahman is in everything, yet it is not everything- ie Brahman is in the table but it is not the table. Which ironically reminds me of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas verses 3 and 77 (I don’t want to get involved in a chicken or the egg discussion about religion). The list goes on concerning the Gnosticism within Hinduism (and the prof says I’m not off thinking this), but it all goes off topic.

Yet the idea of giving birth to the universe sort of supports the idea of Brahman being in everything, but it is not everything. Sort of like my parents are in me (genetically) but they are not me.

While I do not believe there is any actual science in the Hindu religion, it is interesting how the people came up with these ideas before science as we know it today developed.

]]> By: Trash Talking; nothing intellectual here. « blueollie http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-74992 Trash Talking; nothing intellectual here. « blueollie Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:52:17 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-74992 [...] tip to the Friendly Atheist for both of [...] [...] tip to the Friendly Atheist for both of [...]

]]> By: Autumn Harvest http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-74984 Autumn Harvest Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:25:16 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-74984 "The Atheist", that's a description of "Christianity," not "Religion." There are religions other than Christianity. Really! Look it up! “The Atheist”, that’s a description of “Christianity,” not “Religion.” There are religions other than Christianity. Really! Look it up!

]]> By: The Atheist http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-74973 The Atheist Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:52:58 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-74973 I'm as shocked as you that I was able to get that address, very lucky. I'd like to think I'm a genius, but I fear I'd be as delusional as those who believe in the invisible man if I really believed that. I’m as shocked as you that I was able to get that address, very lucky. I’d like to think I’m a genius, but I fear I’d be as delusional as those who believe in the invisible man if I really believed that.

]]> By: Miko http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-74899 Miko Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:50:32 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-74899 <blockquote>Of course, even that first image was a response to...</blockquote> 1. Transmit a text message in a graphical format which increases the file size dramatically and needlessly. 2. Brief and inaccurate scarecrow arguments. 3. Heated debate conducted in such a way that no one is swayed one iota. 4. Trading insults back-and-forth in copycat responses. What we have here is the jpeg version of YouTube. The original is the best, IMO: the phraseology is so much smoother and the timing is perfect.

Of course, even that first image was a response to…

1. Transmit a text message in a graphical format which increases the file size dramatically and needlessly.
2. Brief and inaccurate scarecrow arguments.
3. Heated debate conducted in such a way that no one is swayed one iota.
4. Trading insults back-and-forth in copycat responses.

What we have here is the jpeg version of YouTube.

The original is the best, IMO: the phraseology is so much smoother and the timing is perfect.

]]> By: Aerik http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/comment-page-1/#comment-74893 Aerik Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:35:13 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/07/response-to-the-last-posting/#comment-74893 Of course, even that first image was a response to a picture of a crucified, bloody Jesus captioned: <blockquote cite="orphan">Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because of a rib woman who was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... Yeah, makes perfect sense.</blockquote> http://www.voenixrising.com/images/christianity.jpg Of course, even that first image was a response to a picture of a crucified, bloody Jesus captioned:

Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because of a rib woman who was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… Yeah, makes perfect sense.

http://www.voenixrising.com/images/christianity.jpg

]]>