Theologyweb does have alot of God talk, but I find it interesting because it is Christians debating dogma with other Christians, which is amusing to me.
But Theologyweb has regular posters of all kinds of demonimations, christian, jewish, buddahist, wiccans, agnostics and atheists, and a ton of different Christian sects. They even have Jedi’s !!
Even given all these differences, it is a fairly friendly and polite site where sometimes there is amazing agreement.
I mostly hit the Poly Sci and the Apologetics forums, but some of the debates are pretty good too.
[quote author=“Iisbliss”]Theologyweb does have alot of God talk, but I find it interesting because it is Christians debating dogma with other Christians, which is amusing to me.
I spent some time frequenting TWeb. There are a few interesting posters there, but it was way too mired in both theistic and pure pissing contest nonsense for me—I lost interest. It might work for those who like pissing contests or find something like dueling dogmas entertaining (I have to admit I do sometimes, but not the same ol’ same ol’), or maybe debates (I wouldn’t know—they don’t interest me personally), but if anyone checks it out I’d recommend not getting your hopes up much.
[quote author=“Mia”][quote author=“klangdon”]Mia,
I’m thinking there is one real quick way you could have checked our Mormon boy’s faith…much better than chocolate.
Okay, I’ll bite . . . how??? And remember, we’re standing at the checkout counter at Safeway, so it has to be plausible within that context .
_
Mia, could you please answer a very difficult question for me?
Possibly, you could save me a lot of trouble and effort.
I was wondering if you could clarify or explain the situation of women as non-believers,skeptics, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers etc. Are there many of them out there who are free, unattached, looking for a relationship, or just dabbling in this subject, and therefore they are hard to find or hook up with, either for romance or just a close friendship?
My feeling is that if a man is unattached and looking for a like-minded woman such as might post here, say for example, like you, how likely is it that this guy would ever find her? Your postings are very mature and persuasive. Are you as attractive as your postings appear to the naked eye?
I keep finding that if a man isn’t a church goer or believer or theist, or some kind of Bible believer, well then he have a slim chance of finding Ms. right. Is my assessement accurate or have I been looking for love in all the wrong places?
Please help me out here. Give it some thought before answering since I really want to find a mate who thinks the way I do and I just can’t seem to get to this project off the ground.
[quote author=“frankr”]This guy is kidding? Please tell me you are kidding. “You want to find a mate” I think your trouble is not your atheism but your language. Chimps and penguins have mates (and sometimes australians) but people rarely use that word when searching for romance. I want to mate with you and together we can breed and have offspring thus ensuring the survival of our species. Your namesake spent a lifetime seducing young women for fun. I am sure he never used mate as a verb or a noun in his conquests. It was a courageous post but next time use the Private message function. Save yourself the embarassment.
Is this an example of Christian piety, of compassion and good will towards men? You’re a biblical scholar correct?
You are right. Maybe it would be more compassionate to say nothing. I retract my statement. Start an atheistharmony.com post. You remain compassionate and look the other way as your fellow travellers embarass themselves. I will leave the atheist to finding mates and giving advice to the lovelorn. Mea culpa.
I am not a biblical scholar. True scholars know french, german, greek, latin and hebrew. I am familiar with the bible but no scholar and definitely no linguist.
H
I do not think the vatican has any problem with humans being classified as animals. I believe the classic specific difference between man and the other animals would be his rationality.
Mia, the large number of participants at Internet Infidels gives me a problem. It’s hard to find the time and patience to read through hundreds of posts before participating in a thread, but participating without reading exposes me to the risk of repeating what others have said. I started to read the story of the uncoversion of the woman you mentioned, and I had to quit for now after reading part I. I am sorry that she suffered that kind of upbringing, but it isn’t good for my morale to dwell on it.
HS, you raise the issue of civility and ad hominem attacks. Are you familiar with “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”?
1. There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. . .
2. They deserve to be cast into hell; . . .
3. They are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell. . .
and so on and so on, far into the night. Now, civility is a good thing in itself, but perhaps you can see that I regard Christian teaching as lacking civility. This lack is nowhere expressed more harshly than in its pathetic teaching of eternal damnation (while preaching forgiveness seventy times seven). Now, I mean to be fairly civil. I recognize that there are flesh-and-blood human beings out there, reading these posts, and possibly feeling hurt by their contents. I have no priests to “forgive” me and I have an excellent memory. I have to live with memories of my actions, unshriven. For that reason, it is not my intent to torment anyone. Still, when I have to pick between truthfulness and tactfulness in expressing myself here, I’ll lean strongly toward honesty and, yeah, even some pungent words. I regard your religious devotion as a psychological disorder, a form of emotional immaturity, and tragically contagious. I don’t mean to yell at you about it or abuse you any more than I would mistreat someone suffering from another affliction—tuberculosis, say. It’s really in the atheists’ self-interest not to lose track of our human kindness (lest our actions tend to confirm the believers’ mindless proposition that morality must have its roots in theism.) I take it that you think of yourself as fairly thick-skinned or you wouldn’t have exposed yourself to this ungodly company. Can you consider our candor a gift?
[quote author=“frankr”]This guy is kidding? Please tell me you are kidding. “You want to find a mate” I think your trouble is not your atheism but your language. Chimps and penguins have mates (and sometimes australians) but people rarely use that word when searching for romance. I want to mate with you and together we can breed and have offspring thus ensuring the survival of our species. Your namesake spent a lifetime seducing young women for fun. I am sure he never used mate as a verb or a noun in his conquests. It was a courageous post but next time use the Private message function. Save yourself the embarassment.
So you’re not a biblical scholar rather an everyday garden variety typical Catholic. Again, I reference your post. Thanks for clearing that up.
Frank, I must admit that you’re beginning to disappoint me. Just the other day I talked up your politeness to another forum contributor. But this morning’s attack on Sartre2.0 seems vicious—as though you were attempting to blindside 2.0’s chances in striking up something nice and making a human connection. A couple of weeks ago, you openly admitted to verbally rapping the knuckles of ItsTeeth. I hope you realize that we’re not children here. Some of us are probably twice your age. Even young ItsTeeth is old enough to sign a mortgage, vote, etc. Please leave your schoolmarm attitude behind when you open up this forum. Attack with the force of argument by itself or else everyone here will realize that you are clean out of valid arguments or perhaps too exhausted to make up any that sound good.
.
