Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[Ryedo40 10]

I find that the only people who have an issue with accepting this are

 

1. Some theists who seem to think that if they acknowledge this, it means there are more players on the 'opposite team'

 

2. Some agnostics who like to think that theism/atheism is beneath them and will argue to the bitter end that an agnostic cannot also be a theist or atheist. This, despite the creator of the word acknowledging that he was both an agnostic and an atheist himself.

 

I think it comes down to personal pride in the end.

 

 

I completely agree with you RootsBooster. Of course, some people, perhaps because of that pride - and maybe because they have a superiority complex - there is no reasoning with them. I think that's when it's time to no-longer respond to their posts.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47 10]

I completely agree with you RootsBooster. Of course, some people, perhaps because of that pride - and maybe because they have a superiority complex - there is no reasoning with them. I think that's when it's time to no-longer respond to their posts.

 

Talking of complexes.

 

This one is definitely descriptive of some of the posters on here who are under the impression that they can describe other peoples beliefs better than the people themselves.

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fsophomania&ei=CEjKVNuoFcOV7Aar0IDoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHlbmAde_E_W3ElIMQfQ7HsgFWRsg&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU&cad=rja

[flamingjimmy 10]

Why on earth would anyone think anyone elses view/belief is beneath them?

I don't know, perhaps we should ask the person who's been abusive and condescending towards everyone who's disagreed with them... oh wait that's you!

[mjw47 10]

I don't know, perhaps we should ask the person who's been abusive and condescending towards everyone who's disagreed with them... oh wait that's you!

 

The only reason that I have adopted that response is because people are effectively calling me a liar when I have explained my viewpoint.

 

When you keep on explaining to people that your attitude to a certain subject is quite straight forward, and can be perfectly adequately described using a word designed specifically for the purpose, and they keep disagreeing with you then inevitably a certain amount of contempt of their stance is to be expected.

 

Perhaps if some posters treat people with a little respect then they wouldn't get abused, but when they appear incapable of doing so because of an arrogant regard for their own opinion then they invite and get what they get.

[teeny 10]

The only reason that I have adopted that response is because people are effectively calling me a liar when I have explained my viewpoint.

 

When you keep on explaining to people that your attitude to a certain subject is quite straight forward, and can be perfectly adequately described using a word designed specifically for the purpose, and they keep disagreeing with you then inevitably a certain amount of contempt of their stance is to be expected.

 

Perhaps if some posters treat people with a little respect then they wouldn't get abused, but when they appear incapable of doing so because of an arrogant regard for their own opinion then they invite and get what they get.

 

Most of us on here do respect each others opinions !! but they dont always like the answers so reply in a certain way

[Ryedo40 10]

I don't know, perhaps we should ask the person who's been abusive and condescending towards everyone who's disagreed with them... oh wait that's you!

 

Exactly. And what people like that do is go into a defensive mode where, because they feel inferior, and because they recognise their position is flawed, they attack others - usually their intelligence - and try to bring them down to the level of inferiority they themselves feel(inturn making themselves feel superior). And they'll even mistake polite and reasonable discussion for arrogance.

 

And MJW continues to prove my point with his previous posts.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47 10]

Exactly. And what people like that do is go into a defensive mode where, because they feel inferior, and because they recognise their position is flawed, they attack others - usually their intelligence - and try to bring them down to the level of inferiority they themselves feel. And they'll even mistake polite and reasonable discussion for arrogance.

 

And MJW continues to prove my point with his previous posts.

 

And there you go again proving my point for me.

 

The whole discussion/argument from my viewpoint was extremely straightforward and should have been understood and accepted by anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

 

Instead of which, you and your buddies keep arguing the toss about the fact that a word can't be used in isolation, without some reference to one or the other of the other two options.

 

This is patent nonsense but on and on you go thinking that you know best and exhibiting a desperate need to be agreed with.

 

What else is to explain this neediness other than some form of desperation to have people think that you're clever?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAgnosticism&ei=yzjKVNXZPKOC7gaq24GoBA&usg=AFQjCNGShXnvStu94C3ftDHENuiHbMCRLQ&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

Read down to the section headed Variations of Agnosticism and read the first description.

 

That is what I have claimed to be all along and you lot can't get it into your heads because of your obvious strange compulsion to tell other people what you think.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGoQ1ScwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Flife%2Fthe_spectator%2F2010%2F06%2Fan_agnostic_manifesto.html&ei=XD7KVOmkDqiy7QbNm4CgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGx2ZrE_KiW4deRZfNh4_FMtFjDww&bvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGU

 

Also read that and the first explanatory piece referring to skepticism.

 

Again proves the point despite all your comments.

 

I particularly enjoyed his later observation about 'Faith based Atheism' that is exactly how it comes across at times.

[teeny 10]

Scott M. Sullivan, Ph.D. is the catholic churches well kept secret !! has anyone heard of him and his work ?

[SnailyBoy 10]

Scott M. Sullivan, Ph.D. is the catholic churches well kept secret !! has anyone heard of him and his work ?

 

He's a Christian apologetic.

[teeny 10]

He's a Christian apologetic.

 

yes he is but far more than that he has answered lots of the questions that you guys on here have been asking !!

have a read at this http://sacredheartjesus.com/documents/2014/8/JCritic1.pdf

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2015 at 17:02 ----------

 

maybe watch some of this too http://www.scottmsullivan.com/why-the-new-atheists-are-not-so-bright-after-all/

The typical “New Atheist” tack is to ridicule religious belief while touting their own intellectual superiority. However this is just unsubstantiated boasting. Not only are there numerous contemporary philosophers and scientists who strongly disagree with their views, but the arguments offered by people like Dawkins and Hitchens are very poor. Willliam Lane Craig does a great job of pointing this out:

Edited January 29, 2015 by teeny

[SnailyBoy 10]

yes he is but far more than that he has answered lots of the questions that you guys on here have been asking !!

have a read at this http://sacredheartjesus.com/documents/2014/8/JCritic1.pdf

 

---------- Post added 29-01-2015 at 17:02 ----------

 

maybe watch some of this too http://www.scottmsullivan.com/why-the-new-atheists-are-not-so-bright-after-all/

The typical “New Atheist” tack is to ridicule religious belief while touting their own intellectual superiority. However this is just unsubstantiated boasting. Not only are there numerous contemporary philosophers and scientists who strongly disagree with their views, but the arguments offered by people like Dawkins and Hitchens are very poor. Willliam Lane Craig does a great job of pointing this out:

 

William Lane Craig a presuppositional Christian apologetic.

 

Have a look at some Christopher Hitchens' debates on YouTube.

Edited January 29, 2015 by SnailyBoy

[teeny 10]

William Lane Craig a presuppositional Christian apologetic.

 

Have a look at some Christopher Hitchens' debates on YouTube.

 

The typical “New Atheist” tack is to ridicule religious belief while touting their own intellectual superiority. However this is just unsubstantiated boasting.

 

which is exactly whats been going on here on this thread one of my friends is a mod on here and has pointed that out to me snailboy !