Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Forums » Off-topic discussion » 101 Atheist Quotes 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 2:56 p.m. SVreX UberDork

  EastCoastMojo wrote:

  Well, duh.

  I have to say hell is going to be a berkeleying blast. Everyone I know is going to be there. We're going to have rock and roll, beer and hot rods. And all the kinky sex you want. I mean, seriously. You better make your reservations now, before it's too late!

  ECM:

  I know you were partly kidding, so I'm not getting down on you. But there are people that really believe this (I used to be one of them).

  But I no longer believe it.

  If God is love, and all those friendships and relationships (illicit though they may be) have SOME degree of love as a part of them, then eternal separation from God probably does not include them either.

  I picture something more like eternal nothingness...no friends, no rock and roll, no beer, no hot rods, and most of all, no sex. Very sad.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 3:15 p.m. SVreX UberDork

  aircooled wrote:

  I particularly enjoy the question:

  "What do atheists say in bed?, Ohhh nothingness, Ohhh Science...."

  Interestingly enough, the atheists are really the only ones allowed to use "Oh God", since it it "technically" not allowed by most (all?) Christians.

  Technicality schmechnicality.

  Christians are FREE. They may say this, though they may choose not to, as it may not be healthy for them. But there is no prohibition.

  The commandments prohibit using God's name "in vain". Though I no longer live under the law, I choose to uphold this concept in reverence. However, I would suggest that in the specific example cited, the Lord's name is not being used in vain, but in great power and significance.
  

  Trust me, sex is A LOT better when prayer is included as an integral part. The Designer seems to know significantly more about the beauty of relationship and intimacy than those kinky wackos some of us have met in backstreet bars.
  

  The quote was very funny, though!

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 5:36 p.m. ddavidv UltraDork

  friedgreencorrado wrote:

  But I just wanted to breathe a sigh of relief that I'm not the only atheist here. I already get a ton of grief from my racing buddies for being a liberal, and an equal amount from my liberal buddies for being a gearhead!

  Atheisim (or, agnosticism in my case) need not be the terrain of liberals only. I have many conservative leanings, it's just that organized religion or Christianity ain't one of them. I know liberal church goers and atheist conservatives (though admittedly few of the latter). I think when it comes to these two extremes, you really can't pigeonhole most people in either category simply due to religion.

  Regardless, glad you like it here. Open minds are wonderful things. Debate is healthy. Disliking someone for voicing opinions you don't share is something for the losers on other boards.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 5:48 p.m. Salanis UltraDork

  ddavidv wrote:

  Atheisim (or, agnosticism in my case) need not be the terrain of liberals only. I have many conservative leanings, it's just that organized religion or Christianity ain't one of them. I know liberal church goers and atheist conservatives (though admittedly few of the latter). I think when it comes to these two extremes, you really can't pigeonhole most people in either category simply due to religion.

  It's ironic that Christians are typically more conservative, since Jesus was pretty darn liberal.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 6:20 p.m. pinchvalve UltraDork

  Personally, I dont really like being labelled as an athiest or a non-believer or anything else.
  

  Person 1: What kind of Nazi are you?
  Person 2: "Im not any kind of Nazi"
  Person 1: Oh, so your a non-practicing Nazi then.
  

  There is no need to label me in any way to fit your belief system. Just believe in what you want, and leave me out of it.
  

  It also bugs me when people try to prove their religious history. When you say you believe it, you have faith in it and it brings you peace, good. I may not agree, but I respect your position. But when you start trying to put scientific principals to the Bible to try to prove you are right, I loose all respect. I mean, dinosaurs were on the arc and were killed in the Middle Ages when they were called dragons? (rolls eyes) Your faith is enough, leave it at that.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 6:21 p.m. SVreX UberDork

  Interesting...

  If you mean that by comparison to the rigid legalistic pious religious thinking of the day that was the way of the Pharisees, then I agree, he was very liberal.

  However, modern "liberalism" generally contradicts many of the core tenants of Christian thought, and of Jesus' teachings.
  

  He never contradicted the law of the Old Testament. Rather, He fulfilled it.

  So, He was a liberal by contrast to the pharisaical legalism of the day, but He did not contradict the true historical teachings of the church and of the it's roots. By today's standards, that would probably make Him a conservative.

  If you are suggesting that many modern churches lean too far toward the same legalism that the Pharisees were guilty of, I would also agree.

  Conservatism / Republican / Christian are definitely NOT the same thing.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 6:28 p.m. SVreX UberDork

  pinchvalve:

  We are having a civil discussion, which you are welcome to participate in.

  But no one here called you (or anyone) a Nazi, and it is pretty unnecessary to suggest that anyone would.

  I am not a woman, a sky diver, a football player, or a ballerina. It does not offend me one bit to be identified as none of these.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 6:32 p.m. aircooled Dork

  SVreX wrote:

  ...Conservatism / Republican / Christian are definitely NOT the same thing.

  You are entirely correct, unfortunately that does not matter. Sadly in the (seemingly?) highly partisan politics of the day they are inescapably linked.

  You can either fall into one of the two camps, or deal with the fact that you are effectively unrepresented.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 6:57 p.m. Salanis UltraDork

  SVreX wrote:

  Interesting...

  If you mean that by comparison to the rigid legalistic pious religious thinking of the day that was the way of the Pharisees, then I agree, he was very liberal.

  ...

  If you are suggesting that many modern churches lean too far toward the same legalism that the Pharisees were guilty of, I would also agree.

  I was speaking purely in terms of his social leanings, not his religious ones. You know: love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, blessed are the meek, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, not passing judgement on people, generally loving and nurturing the outcasts in society, forgiving people who have harmed you. The guy was pretty socially progressive.

  And I am inclined to think that anyone who tries to codify what Jesus taught and use that to pass judgement and blame on anyone has completely missed the point of what Jesus taught.

  And on a humorous note, to quote Eddie Izzard as Jesus: "I don't know what happened. I told them hang out, be groovy, drink a bit of wine... and they split into different groups."

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 7:15 p.m. Trans_Maro Reader

  Sorry guys, my heaven has a beer volcano and a stripper factory:

  http://www.venganza.org/

  Shawn

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 7:38 p.m. maroon92 SuperDork

  Salanis said:

  And on a humorous note, to quote Eddie Izzard as Jesus: "I don't know what happened. I told them hang out, be groovy, drink a bit of wine... and they split into different groups."

  Eddie Izzard said:

  "You've got the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jesuits, the Methodists, the Evangelicals, the free Presbyterians, the locked up Presbyterians... the Quakers, the Bakers, the Candlestick Makers... The Mormons are from Mars, Dad, we've had that checked out."

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 7:57 p.m. SVreX UberDork

  aircooled wrote:

  SVreX wrote:

  ...Conservatism / Republican / Christian are definitely NOT the same thing.

  You are entirely correct, unfortunately that does not matter. Sadly in the (seemingly?) highly partisan politics of the day they are inescapably linked.

  You can either fall into one of the two camps, or deal with the fact that you are effectively unrepresented.

  It doesn't bother me a bit to be unrepresented in the political arena. I'm more concerned with my representation in the eternal.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 8:08 p.m. SVreX UberDork

  Salanis wrote: It's ironic that Christians are typically more conservative, since Jesus was pretty darn liberal.

  Salanis wrote:

  I was speaking purely in terms of his social leanings, not his religious ones. You know: love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, blessed are the meek, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, not passing judgement on people, generally loving and nurturing the outcasts in society, forgiving people who have harmed you. The guy was pretty socially progressive.

  In the case of Jesus, I make no distinction between His "social leanings" and "his religious ones". Religion- He was a practicing Jew. I am not, and I do not relate to Him as a Jew. I relate to Him as the Messiah, the Son of God, which is in opposition to many of his religion. His "social leanings" were a by-product of who He was- they were simply His nature, His essence, not His ideologies.

  Are you suggesting that in your experiences conservatives are less loving toward their neighbors, more violent, less willing to pay their taxes, more judgemental, less loving of societal outcasts, and less forgiving than their liberal counterparts? Just clarifying.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 8:29 p.m. Salanis UltraDork

  SVreX wrote:

  Are you suggesting that in your experiences conservatives are less loving toward their neighbors, more violent, less willing to pay their taxes, more judgemental, less loving of societal outcasts, and less forgiving than their liberal counterparts? Just clarifying.

  I'm suggesting the Conservatives are more inclined towards an ideology of individuals taking care of themselves, rather than focusing on the community. They are inclined to be more interested in commerce and business than social welfare. I'd say they're more inclined to seek justice over forgiveness.

  I would say that Republicans are more inclined to be judgemental of non-"traditional" lifestyles.

  I am pretty sure that Jesus would not be an NRA member.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 9:05 p.m. walterj HalfDork

  Salanis wrote: I am pretty sure that Jesus would not be an NRA member.

  Its OK, The Batman wasn't really into guns either but man o man... he had some slick gadgets. Some would say almost indistinguishable from magic...

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 9:16 p.m. Trans_Maro Reader

  According to some of his followers "Jesus hates fags!

  I think it depends on whose version of Jesus you're looking at. Most of the rednecks seem to have a different Jesus than the bible does.

  -rant not in the spirit of this thread deleted-

  Shawn

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 9:48 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

  Salanis wrote:

  I am pretty sure that Jesus would not be an NRA member.

  Strangely enough, I actually support some of the things the gun lobby is trying to do, even though I believe the historical evidence says the very existence of Jesus may not be a foregone conclusion. IMO, it's not much of a jump from "..you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.." to "..you don't need 300hp to get to work..". Witness for example that bill in Oregon:

  http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/oh-crap-outlawing-tire...

  http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?cmd=print&id=4232426

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 9:54 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

  Hmmm. I am not 100% sure Jesus wouldn't want to empty an AK47 clip at a target. After all, he was supposed to have a human side.

  Since we seem to have drifted toward a discussion of whether atheism and conservatism can coexist, why yes they can. I'm proof. In fact, I see no reason more conservatives aren't atheists. Why?

  I believe we all make our own way in this life. Of course we should help one another; there are those who, due to circumstance beyond their control, are not able to do for themselves. But I expect those who are NOT in such a situation to get off their ass and do for themselves. None of that whiny sh!t about 'society didn't give me a chance to get a plasma TV for free so I had to rob a liquor store'.

  It fits in with my atheism this way: we are all ultimately alone in this world. We come into it alone, we leave alone. No one makes those journeys with us. Once it's over, it's over. Sorry, that's it: no angel wings, no celestial amusement park, no 72 virgins, no moving to another plane, no burning in fire forever, no popping out of another birth canal somewhere else, nope sorry this is the only life you'll get. It's yours and yours alone, you determine what happens and how you handle the challenges life throws at you so don't fuc* it up. No do overs.

  If expecting people to be responsible for their own lives ain't the foundation of conservatism, I'm damned if I know what is.

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 10:04 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

  SVreX wrote:

  aircooled wrote:

  SVreX wrote:

  ...Conservatism / Republican / Christian are definitely NOT the same thing.

  You are entirely correct, unfortunately that does not matter. Sadly in the (seemingly?) highly partisan politics of the day they are inescapably linked.

  You can either fall into one of the two camps, or deal with the fact that you are effectively unrepresented.

  It doesn't bother me a bit to be unrepresented in the political arena. I'm more concerned with my representation in the eternal.

  I think the problem starts when others less tolerant than yourself convince themselves that their own `representation in the eternal' depends upon forcing others to live according to the tenents of their faith. At the least, it leads to the waste of public resources (i.e., President Bush's "faith-based" gov't handout program), and at it's harshest, it leads to the denial of civil liberties and human rights (the censorship and reduced freedom of women in the Islamic world).

• 

  Feb. 15, 2009 11:32 p.m. Salanis UltraDork

  Jensenman wrote:

  If expecting people to be responsible for their own lives ain't the foundation of conservatism, I'm damned if I know what is.

  Which makes it ironic, that atheism and secularism get associated with the political "left" but the people who supposedly follow the teachings of a guy who was all about "love your neighbor" tend to gravitate to the political "right".

  friedgreencorrado wrote:

  Strangely enough, I actually support some of the things the gun lobby is trying to do, even though I believe the historical evidence says the very existence of Jesus may not be a foregone conclusion. IMO, it's not much of a jump from "..you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.." to "..you don't need 300hp to get to work..".

  My statement about Jesus not being an NRA member was not to say that I disagree with the gun lobby. Just because I think Jesus was more "liberal", doesn't mean I think conservatives are bad. And no, you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer. You need an AK-47 to oppose a government that becomes tyrannical.

  And for my part, I view Jesus much like I view the Buddha: a historical figure who was a spiritually enlightened leader.

• 

  Feb. 16, 2009 5:31 a.m. SVreX UberDork

  Trans_Maro wrote:

  According to some of his followers "Jesus hates fags!

  Do you know Christians who have said this?

  I know hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians, and have NEVER heard one of them say this. I have, however, heard many ill-informed Christian haters CLAIM that Christians say it.

  My suggestion is that none of His followers have ever said it, and if someone has said it, they are not one of His followers.

• 

  Feb. 16, 2009 5:52 a.m. SVreX UberDork

  Salanis wrote:

  I'm suggesting the Conservatives are more inclined towards an ideology of individuals taking care of themselves, rather than focusing on the community. They are inclined to be more interested in commerce and business than social welfare. I'd say they're more inclined to seek justice over forgiveness.

  I would say that Republicans are more inclined to be judgemental of non-"traditional" lifestyles.

  I am pretty sure that Jesus would not be an NRA member.

  OK, I can agree with most of that, but it might be possible that there is another side.

  Perhaps Conservatives are very caring about community, but very fed up with individuals taking advantage of the system for their personal gain, lazy selfishness, and the detriment of the community at large. Perhaps they would rather encourage and promote individual and community successes than make everyone wards of State. Perhaps they would rather give people a hand up rather than make them dependent on an ever-increasing and controlling State run hand-out system. Perhaps they are defenders of the weak, and protective of victims instead of wishy-washy on crime.

  Perhaps Republicans identify certain lifestyles to be harmful to the community at large, and would rather encourage better choices.

  I think you are right on the NRA, though I don't picture Jesus suggesting it would be a good idea for people to fall in neat little lines behind a government or leader who promotes a worldly view instead of an eternal view.

  So, that's where you stand on Conservatives and Republicans. Where do you stand on Christians?

• 

  Feb. 16, 2009 6:01 a.m. SVreX UberDork

  friedgreencorrado wrote:

  I think the problem starts when others less tolerant than yourself convince themselves that their own `representation in the eternal' depends upon forcing others to live according to the tenents of their faith. At the least, it leads to the waste of public resources (i.e., President Bush's "faith-based" gov't handout program), and at it's harshest, it leads to the denial of civil liberties and human rights (the censorship and reduced freedom of women in the Islamic world).

  Will it be a lesser waste of public resources, now that President Obama has renamed it to the "White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" with the stated intent "to expand the role of this office as it relates to policy issues where religious and local leaders can be effective"?

  Seems like Bush is not the only one at fault here.

• 

  Feb. 16, 2009 6:33 a.m. ddavidv UltraDork

  Salanis said:

  I'm suggesting the Conservatives are more inclined towards an ideology of individuals taking care of themselves, rather than focusing on the community. They are inclined to be more interested in commerce and business than social welfare.

  It's been statistically proven that conservatives give far more to charities than liberals. Your view doesn't necessarily hold water. Conservatives give to the people and organizations they choose, while liberals get the government to do it for them (with the added delightful benefit of forcing everyone to give wether they want to or not, or even believe in a particular 'charity').

  SvreX, have you not seen the endless number of these photos of so-called Christians? They say this pretty frequently (and I know, it is a miniscule faction, but they are the ones the press loves to cover).

• 

  Feb. 16, 2009 6:54 a.m. SVreX UberDork

  As I said:

  SVreX wrote:

  My suggestion is that none of His followers have ever said it, and if someone has said it, they are not one of His followers.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  

You'll need to log in to post.

• Jump to
• Top
• Grassroots Motorsports
• Off-Topic
• Sprockets
• $200X Classifieds
• Classic Motorsports