- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:35 pm to Enadious
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:35 pm to Enadious
quote:
If you are an Atheist, you are just as close-minded as a Theist.
Close-minded know-it-all claims others are close-minded.
quote:
If you don't believe in God, to be open-minded, you'd be an agnostic.
I have plenty of knowledge - enough for me to know that all the world religions are fabricated myths. So I am without theism. A-theism. Get it?
3
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:42 pm to AlterEd
quote:
I honestly thought that atheism was just an angsty teenage phase that rational people eventually grew out of.
Yet statistically, the most intelligent and most educated people are atheist. Think about it Ed, you are calling atheists irrational - people who understand their reality based on scientific principles and evidence. Your “rational” religious person believes unverifiable and untestable truth claims, and even worse only believes those unverifiable truth claims from their social in-group but rejects the unverifiable truth claims of others.
Serious question: Why aren’t you a Muslim?
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:47 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
These guys are the one's that started all of this talk. They claim to have been "briefed" by intelligence officials. Now, there have been claims of it being at the white house, and claims of it being elsewhere, but that's all semantics, as the meeting, itself, did not happen. And there is no reason the intelligence community would give a rip about "warning" these fake pastors about anything.
If the government really wanted to inform Church leaders so they can start preparing Christians for a faith shattering revelation, their selections of Christian leaders is odd. It would almost be the least effective way to spread the word. A few pentacostal/non denom pastors of some mid size churches? Why not bring in the Pope? The Archbishop of New York? Joel Osteen? Islamic leaders? Jewish leaders? That's how you would prepare the most people of faith.
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:48 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I have plenty of knowledge - enough for me to know that all the world religions are fabricated myths. So I am without theism. A-theism. Get it?
If you're truly open minded, as you claimed, you would be agnostic.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:50 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Think about it Ed, you are calling atheists irrational - people who understand their reality based on scientific principles and evidence.
Yes, I am. Because I understand that claiming something definitely does not exist is still an affirmative claim that cannot be proven. It is the very definition of irrational.
As I said, rational people eventually come to this realization and grow out of the childish "atheist" phase.
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:52 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You still haven't shown a grasp for philosophy.
Yet statistically, the most intelligent and most educated people are atheist. Think about it Ed, you are calling atheists irrational - people who understand their reality based on scientific principles and evidence. Your “rational” religious person believes unverifiable and untestable truth claims, and even worse only believes those unverifiable truth claims from their social in-group but rejects the unverifiable truth claims of others.
What you're discussing is epistemology, and you are proclaiming adherence to a self-defeating epistemological framework of empiricism.
If you want to win arguments, you better brush up on philosophy and logic more and rely less on fringe "scholars".
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:54 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Yet statistically, the most intelligent and most educated people are atheist.
That's, at the very least, a misleading claim.
Pew Rearch
Looked at from the opposite perspective, roughly 89% of college graduates in America do not identify as atheist or agnostic. They identify with various religious traditions
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 6/3/26 at 12:59 pm to FooManChoo
He will pivot to try and make a distinction between hard and soft atheism. I reject that shite entirely. This is a distinction they try to make when they realize that the very thing they have been arguing for (well, however long squirrel has been at this now) is just as illogical as the claim they spend all of their time trying to shout down. It is intellectual cowardice. The guy spends all of his time trying to convince people God isn't real, yet when put to the test he is going to say, "I didn't say God doesn't exist, I just lack the belief in God." It is a coward's position.
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:00 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
At best, you can say that the first is debatable based on interpretation. If you want to demand your view is correct, by all mean do so
That’s true, and I will.
quote:
but that is not a good faith discussion
I don’t like the hypocrisy on this site. “You arrogant atheists think you are always right.” Which is not true - we are open minded and can be persuaded by evidence. Theists though are close minded, will believe whatever they want based on their dogmas, and can’t be persuaded. So it is you guys that argue in bad faith, while projecting your faults onto others.
I haven't made a theistic argument. It is a linguistic one. Being challenged on your faulty assumptions led you to frame it that way. You state authoritatively things that are opinion based and say others must understand disputed things your way or shove off. That is a bad faith discussion. It is not open-minded. It is not a personal attack to point it out. It is an academic term to describe exactly what I outlined. That's not a personal attack. It is the vernacular of open and free discussion. Choose to interpret it how you will but assuming my intent is presumptive and rude.
quote:
Just as we might call a superior athlete, actor or musician a “star” today while in no way understanding them to be a celestial ball of gas
Biblical authors thought stars were angels, angels that could fall out of the sky.
Well, my point was to illustrate the concept of semantic drift, which has nothing at all to do with your reply. However, I will address you response out of magnanimity. Going back to earliest cuneiform writing, the symbol for god and star were the same. Does that necessarily mean that they thought all stars were gods and vice versa?
Is it possible that figurative language is being used when stars/heavenly beings fall from the sky?
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:06 pm to AUveritas
I've always been curious of what SM's background must be. He's been a board atheist for quite some time here and even now, the entire first page and the overwhleming majority of the first 6 pages of his post history all center on religious topics. I don't expect to get a full picture of his life story on a message board, but I do find it intriguing.
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:26 pm to AlterEd
quote:I know we've been arguing a lot in this thread, but I wanted to say I agree with you on this, and I appreciate the passion you have on these other things, even if I disagree with some of it. No hard feelings
He will pivot to try and make a distinction between hard and soft atheism. I reject that shite entirely. This is a distinction they try to make when they realize that the very thing they have been arguing for (well, however long squirrel has been at this now) is just as illogical as the claim they spend all of their time trying to shout down. It is intellectual cowardice. The guy spends all of his time trying to convince people God isn't real, yet when put to the test he is going to say, "I didn't say God doesn't exist, I just lack the belief in God." It is a coward's position.
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:29 pm to JiminyCricket
A person can glean a lot just by looking at his statement that Jesus definitely doesn't exist, that this is well known, and should be common knowledge. He is a militant atheist. Which is going to make his pivot to a distinction between hard and soft atheism even funnier because it is, once again, transparently dishonest.
This post was edited on 6/3/26 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:30 pm to FooManChoo
It's no problem, man. I don't take it personally.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:37 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I have plenty of knowledge
No, you really don't. Because if you think you know something, but you are wrong... that's not knowledge. In addition to not having nearly as much knowledge as you think you have, you also have a tremendous lack of wisdom.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:48 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
I've always been curious of what SM's background must be. He's been a board atheist for quite some time here and even now, the entire first page of his post history all centers on religious topics. I don't expect to get a full picture of his life story on a message board, but I do find it intriguing.
His posts are very scholarly; he's meticulous and well studied, almost to the point of being fanatical. Kinda like me.
I heard it mentioned somewhere that there were traumatic events in his life which turned him against Belief, but I don't think he ever mentioned it. He's definitely good for bringing out the best apologetics in the Christian community.
I do note that when the arguments move to the metaphysical realm wherein the basic Principle would be that 'Awareness' is both 'God' and the Source of all that is, he gets quiet. Problematic Theology and manifold, competitive subjective 'interpretations' aside.
I offered a philosophical framework which supported and rationalized the idea of a viable, Triune Godhead, and he pretty much bailed.
The Idea that an infinitely incomprehensible Awareness would by default, become a 'Self' ("I am, the I Am"), and further that the "moving power" of the Holy Spirit (of Truth) would concurrently force (no such thing as Time in a Spiritual Realm) Singular Awareness to become an "I" is a given. Had to happen, as all things that can, already have.
It is further a given that for an Awareness to truly 'exist' as opposed to non-existence (impossibility), there must be something 'separate' to be aware of. A 'Reflector' as it were, to truly lend 'reality' to what would otherwise only exist as an Idea. Said 'Idea' being "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God". Literally so.
Once (again, concurrently so) God the Father (Awareness) 'birthed' "The Son" of God, "Firstborn", then both the potential of God Reality and the Feeling of Love became 'real'. A Singular Entity may have the potential for Love, but it takes two to make such real and experience said potential.
The above cannot be affected by ANY form of a Self Aware Entity. All things are derived from that Triune God Base. And according to their relative level of spiritual awareness, they will be subject to the Spiritual Laws/Truths therein. Like Bob Dylan says, "everybody gotta' serve somebody".
It would behoove all who desire respect from Entities above them, to lend respect to Entities below. Or be judged by the same measure of the which one judges. Human, Aliens or whatever. We all exist under the same Source. And obviously, It is Loving; as anybody that experiences the power of Love knows that it is preferable to Love's Opposite. Of course, validating Love is a choice, lest God be accused by "the Accuser" of creating Humanity to worship Him, instead of the real motivating power, Love.
Squirrel Bait.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 1:53 pm to jchamil
quote:
If you're truly open minded, as you claimed, you would be agnostic.
Are you therefore saying religious people, theists, are close minded?
Can you understand the concept of a person having a belief based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, but being willing and eager to consider new evidence (open minded)?
This contrasts with a person having a belief based on a dogma that their beliefs are true and no evidence could possibly ever convince them otherwise (close minded)?
Posted on 6/3/26 at 2:18 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Are you therefore saying religious people, theists, are close minded?
Sure, you can say that.
I was more pointing out that you have every bit as much faith as theists do. It's two sides of the same coin if you claim to 100% believe one way or the other.
You aren't any more openminded than theists with your 100% absolute stance against gods/religions in this thread. You aren't going to change your stance, just like they aren't going to change their stance.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 2:56 pm to jchamil
quote:quote:Sure, you can say that.
Are you therefore saying religious people, theists, are close minded?
Do YOU say that?
quote:
I was more pointing out that you have every bit as much faith as theists do.
No sir, that is psychological projection of your faults onto others in a desperate attempt to equivocate. I do not share a willingness to believe that which is untested and unverifiable and evidently untrue. I have no faith. Disbelief in unsubstantiated allegations is not faith. Sorry.
quote:
It's two sides of the same coin if you claim to 100% believe one way or the other.
There you go again with false equivalencies. Yes we both believe in certain characteristics of our environments but my side is based on verifiable and testable evidence and is open to new evidence which my override or contradict earlier beliefs and I’d have no choice but to admit and to believe what is evidently true.
Theists on the other hand believe whatever they want including untestable unsubstantiated assertions and wishful thinking and even what is evidently not true based on a close minded willingness to adhere to their dogmas.
For a lot of biblical fundamentalists, they believe the earth is a flat disk supported by giant pillars with a solid rock/glass-like transparent dome above our heads supporting a heavenly ocean of water. They believe this despite being able to easily verify the earth is a sphere. But they believe it anyway because of their dogmas. Their dogmas give them comfort. Atheists like me believe in verifiable truths whether they are convenient or not, whether they are comfortable or not. That’s the difference.
quote:
You aren't any more openminded than theists with your 100% absolute stance against gods/religions in this thread.
The best available evidence reveals that the Bible is myths that don’t comport with history. Sure there could be other beings - perhaps advanced enough to appear supernatural or godlike to us - such as aliens, but we don’t know what we don’t know. What I can tell you with 100% certainty though is the Canaanite war/storm/volcano deity called Yahweh is a made up mythical fantasy, and is on par with Zeus, Jupiter, Innana, Marduk, Osiris, and Wodin, most of which you reject as myth. I reject your Yahweh for the same reason as you reject all the other gods I mentioned.
quote:
You aren't going to change your stance, just like they aren't going to change their stance.
But I could. Yahweh or whichever god could just become visible and active and I’d have no choice but to acknowledge his/their existence. Aliens though could come out of the sky, show us how the universe cosmically expanded 14 billion years ago, and show us how life developed naturally on earth, and even give us superhuman genetic powers or insane technology, and the religious fruitcakes would reject it all because they need to protect their dogmas.
Posted on 6/3/26 at 3:04 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Oooh boy. Again?
I was more pointing out that you have every bit as much faith as theists do.
No sir, that is psychological projection of your faults onto others in a desperate attempt to equivocate. I do not share a willingness to believe that which is untested and unverifiable and evidently untrue. I have no faith. Disbelief in unsubstantiated allegations is not faith. Sorry.
Have you converted to agnosticism?
Posted on 6/3/26 at 3:15 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
No sir, that is psychological projection of your faults onto others in a desperate attempt to equivocate.
Page 64 of 71
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News