What would.....

[cupid04]

What would atheists do if no other religions came on here? Would they just
argue amongst themselves?

[naomi24]

Cassa, // or because god has no religion? //

Well, whatever caused it, that ^^ has to be one of the most sensible ideas I've ever seen written on AnswerBank. :o)

[jomifl]

Cassa..a temporary overproduction of endorphin in the brain perhaps? I once had a similar experience but didn't attribute it to any supernatural beings or forces. I have assumed that it was a bit like the state of nirvana that some people claim to achieve by meditation. As it was the pigs needed mucking out and feeding plus their drinking water was frozen, so, quickly back to reality.

[cassa333]

I have no rational thought that it was actualy god just that at that point it WAS god. If that makes sence.

I do believe it was a winky brain, moment endorphins not withstanding lol and not a real god.

Because of it though I can see a little clearer why people beleive when they have these experiences but not when they believe on blind faith.

In my head it soulds right but not sure it is coming across properly:(

[sandyRoe]

Had we but world enough and time
These pointless debates would be no crime.
I believe the atheists would be out and about doing all manner of good works. Instead, the devil has them entangled in the WW web and they still deny his existence.

[jomifl]

So, Sandy you admit to being the devil at last....

[naomi24]

Sandy, //I believe the atheists would be out and about doing all manner of good works. Instead, the devil has them entangled in the WW web and they still deny his existence.//

If you think atheists aren't out and about doing all manner of good works, perhaps the devil has you entangled in the WWW - and more.

[sandyRoe]

The devil is only God's catspaw. We can't know his/her ultimate purpose. But it does seem a shame that all the passion and energy that is wasted here in R&S by the atheists isn't put to better use.
There are days when there's enough hot air generated here to float a dirigible.

[naomi24]

Sandy, //it does seem a shame that all the passion and energy that is wasted here in R&S by the atheists isn't put to better use. //

Bearing in mind you haven't a clue what people do outside of AB, that's rather a presumptuous criticism.

[seadogg]

Nice little refs. to Andrew Marvell, Sandy.

I suspect that many contributors are quite busy and pop onto here between jobs.

The devil might find work for idle hands to do. He also provides a little distraction from the daily round. (Exits L to check the liver and onions).

[sandyRoe]

Is it? If someone is wasting 'x' amount of energy in a futile attempt to try and convert a theist to their bleak nihilistic view of life and what follows, instead of expending it to improve all our lots in the here and now, is it really a presumptuous criticism?
It's true, I don't know what others do outside of A&B. But I harbour suspicions that some of the most vociferous atheists here in R&S may actually be quite religious in the real world.

[beso]

I am certainly no religious.

Moreover I am not trying to convert anyone but rather ensuring that religious belifs are thoroughly exposed as ridiculous. By debating here I hone my ability to present that argument.

[andy-hughes]

Your posts implies that athesists 'argue' with those of faith, and that is their reason d'etre, and without those of faih, atheists would be lost.

Speaking as an athesit, my stance is the absence of a personal belief, rather than a need for others to think as I do. Therefore if believers did not post here, neither would I - i would not be looking for alternative people with whom to 'argue' - that would be a waste of valuable time.

[jomifl]

So Sandy, what makes you think Atheists who post on answerbank have less time to do charitable works than believers. We don't waste our time praying and going to church, or even going on pilgrimages and living in caves.

[naomi24]

Sandy, yes, it is a presumptuous criticism. Why assume that non-believers do less than you - or anyone of religion - to improve the lot of others? None of the believers here ever offer a rational response to the philosophy, and so, like you, they resort to attacking the messenger.

[sandyRoe]

I sometimes think I was far happier when I was a troglodyte. I'd sit contented, and my only source of information was my bible and an occasional glimpse of the early edition of the Belfast Telegraph. Now, with access to a computer, I think I'm suffering from information overload.
As for pilgrimages, I sometimes think it's the journey rather than the actual destination that's important .
http://www.cavafy.com...ntent.asp?id=74&cat=1

As did he.^

[sandyRoe]

Naomi, if my words have offended you I apologise. I would never presume to criticise any individual for expressing their sincerely held beliefs, or non-belief, here or anywhere else.

[naomi24]

Sandy, no you haven't offended me. That word 'offence' is over-used and much abused here these days - mainly to shut other people up - so I don't generally 'do' offence. I'd rather stand and fight my corner. Anything less demonstrates an intellectual failing and is simply a cop-out - in my opinion.

However, it does seem to me that some people here have no hesitation in criticising non-believers on a personal level, expecting that to go unchallenged, whereas they deem it unacceptable for anyone to criticise religion, its doctrine, or its adherents on any level because, in their view, religion must be respected at all costs. Well, sadly for them it isn't - and if they stick around here that is something they will have to learn to acknowledge.

[sandyRoe]

jomifl, I didn't say that atheists had less time to do charity works than believers. Though it's clear that time spent at the computer means less time available for charity work in the atheistic version of the Salvation Army, or St Vincent De Paul, or whatever.
I'm well aware that my preaching on the streets of Belfast has been greatly diminished since I found the internet. So, it's not just atheists who are enmeshed in the web.

[jomifl]

Sandy, I can see that it is time to make myself a little clearer so that you cannot pretend to miss my point...which is that if atheists are wasting valuable time on answerbank when they could be helping the starving multitude then believers should be wasting even less time on answerbank because they are apparently so much more charitable, so their time is much more valuble (in the charitable sense). ;-)