PDA

View Full Version : Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?


Pages : 1 [2]

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 05:48 AM
Did you read my answer to someone here who also brought up Odin, that Odin was like a slingshot in the days of Odin's believers, but today's God is much more to the nth degree than a slingshot, today's God is in weapon context like a self-guided transcontinental missile with nuclear warhead.I've heard this reasoning before. It's based on the assumption that things always evolve into something better - for example, we went from men carrying goods on their back to horse-drawn carriages to steam trains to diesel and electric trains. We went from galleys to men-o-war to battleships to today's highly advanced frigates. Taking this a step further, many argue that since monotheism is the latest of the religious ways to think about gods, it must therefore also be the best. Fallacious at best, of course.

[ Thanks, The Man, for not resorting to angry language ]Seeing we've all been insulted by a troll for five pages, that is indeed something to be grateful for:D. I suppose if I went into a bar and punched a guy and he wasn't angry, I'd be sort of grateful, too. Unless I was trying to start a fist fight, of course.

AWPrime
19th November 2008, 05:58 AM
No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of GodConsidering that no religion has been able to show any conclusive evidence of their god(s), it is clear that they have no knowledge of god(s) or that divine beings don't exist.


Did you read my answer to someone here who also brought up Odin, that Odin was like a slingshot in the days of Odin's believers, but today's God is much more to the nth degree than a slingshot, today's God is in weapon context like a self-guided transcontinental missile with nuclear warhead.
That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.
If you were living in the time and clime of Odin's believers and you are one of them, you would also consider Odin to be more sophisticated than some god of some more primitive people like some illiterate tribe in black Africa.Actually an argument can be made that the older pagan religions are the more sophisticated ones. In many ways the ME monotheistic religions are the Big Macs of religion.


You should now also go and preach to the adherents of the ancient restored Norsemen's godsWe don't need to, they are often very friendly people who don't force their believes onto others.

yrreg
19th November 2008, 05:59 AM
[...]

Quote [ from Yrreg ]:
About someone here I asked to give his answer to the question, What is evidence, no he has not given the answer to that question; so try again and really know what is a what question and answer it instead of going about the kinds of evidence into objective and subjective.

I've done it. Just read what I said.


Quote [ from Yrreg ]:
Just give me the lines in your post where you tell readers here that evidence is ______________ etc., etc., etc., then you can allege next that there are two kinds, etc.

But first what it is.

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.




Dear PixyMisa, if this were an examination, you had given the answer for The Man too late, the examination is over.

Here is the reproduction of The Man's post where you say that he answered my question What is evidence, examine it and see if he made any answer to my question What is evidence.



Posted by yrreg
Since atheists love to bring up the word evidence in order to not have to think at all, please then tell the readers of this thread what you know about evidence, how many kinds there are and of what strength they are for what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man, who else but man?

Okay, let's start off right away.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.




You are confused; evidence requires thinking both in its acquisition and analysis.

As for types of evidence there are basically two kinds, objective and subjective. Although some might say that subjective evidence is not really evidence, sometimes it is all that can be obtained, particularly when considering a subject like “what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man”.

Given your usually loaded questions, I will just focus on the definitions (in my own words) of those two types of evidence.

Subjective evidence – Dependent on the subject relating the evidence and the circumstances involved, although sometimes reproducible, generally not consistent in independently controlled experiments. The key word is subjective or dependent on the subject being tested.

Objective evidence- Preferably attained by calibrated measuring equipment (although not always possible) under strict controlled and double blind testing to reduce potential influences of subjects or testers. Also, it would be reproducible to a high degree of accuracy independently or in other words with different subjects, testers and equipment at some other location.

I do not know or care if those definitions (in my own words) were under your 50 word count requirement.

Posted by yrreg

By the way I can't understand why I cannot anymore since two three days back, just highlight a line and click on the formatting link, I have now to type the code words character by character to produce the format I want to surround a line.

Anyone knowledgeable here, please enlighten me.

Yrreg


I can only surmise that perhaps you have used up all the available characters of that particular font.




Please let The Man himself point out where in his post he gave any answer to the question What is evidence.



As regards your answer to the question What is evidence: Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion. I am studying it.



Yrreg

Foster Zygote
19th November 2008, 06:13 AM
Well, if such a kind of irrelevant but comforting comparison subserves your self-reinforcement to continue to be blind to reason and intelligence, I will not begrudge you your consuelo de bobo.
I'm not sure if you are genuinely incapable of perceiving the relevance of other gods in regard to your assertion that your god exists, or if you are being deliberately obtuse because you do understand the problem it raises.

You should now also go and preach to the adherents of the ancient restored Norsemen's gods, that their gods don't exist,...
Why should I do that? As long as they don't attempt to force their beliefs on me in any way I am perfectly content to let them have their delusions. If they choose to openly discuss the evidence, or lack thereof, for their beliefs by visiting a public forum in which people discuss that sort of thing then I am willing to debate the issue with them, but I'll leave the preaching to you.

...and also to take their consolation from your notice to them that for you even the Christian God does not exist for you...
Why would they care? To them Jesus is no more real than Odin is to you. I'm amazed by the arrogance you display in assuming that even people of a completely different faith would somehow recognize your god as important, or even superior to their own.

...even though your new president -- if you be American -- is going to swear to the Christian God that he is going to serve the US citizenry and keep sacrosanct the US Constitution, ending his oath of office with "So help me God."
Maybe, maybe not. Again, "so help me god" is not an official part of the oath of the president of the United States. The president is just as free to add "ya hey der!" or "what's fer lunch?" at the end of the oath. And there is no more justification to argue that "so help me god" is an oath to the Christian god than that it is an oath to a deistic or pantheistic god.

No more, please, no more about Odin and associates, let's go to substantial stuffs.
Sorry, but you asked us about the sort of evidence that we are looking for. Well, we are asking you for any evidence that your god is any more genuine than any other. Why do you believe in your god but reject others?

RoboTimbo
19th November 2008, 07:03 AM
Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

Did I say that I reject Odin?

I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.

It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.

If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.


Did you read my answer to someone here who also brought up Odin, that Odin was like a slingshot in the days of Odin's believers, but today's God is much more to the nth degree than a slingshot, today's God is in weapon context like a self-guided transcontinental missile with nuclear warhead.

That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.

If you were living in the time and clime of Odin's believers and you are one of them, you would also consider Odin to be more sophisticated than some god of some more primitive people like some illiterate tribe in black Africa.

Tell me, are there folks in Norway today who are taking Odin seriously, and how many of them if any.

By the way, where did you pick up that Odin business, from the same books by the people who got good business writing for atheists and getting you to buy their books?


Get some original reasons for denying God, from your own thinking and experiences in life.


Now, I am sure pretty soon after some more posts have appeared here, someone will bring up Odin again.




Yrreg


You're using your god to prove the theory of evolution?

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 07:25 AM
You're using your god to prove the theory of evolution?What about this new phenomenon of secular states with a welfare system (optional) and high level of atheism? You know, like the Nordic countries, Canada, and Japan? The ones that dominate the Human Development Index and Global Peace Index?

If we're adhering to the "out with the old, in with the new" on religion, then why aren't you campaigning for everyone in the States to throw away their organized religions and start believing in nothing, "some higher power", or some New Age fad, like so many of us Norsemen?

The Man
19th November 2008, 07:54 AM
Dear PixyMisa, if this were an examination, you had given the answer for The Man too late, the examination is over.

If this were an examination it would require the examiner to actually have what they considered to be a correct answer. So what do think that answer should be?



Here is the reproduction of The Man's post where you say that he answered my question What is evidence, examine it and see if he made any answer to my question What is evidence.




Please let The Man himself point out where in his post he gave any answer to the question What is evidence.


Well, I’ll let you do that.


About someone here I asked to give his answer to the question, What is evidence, no he has not given the answer to that question; so try again and really know what is a what question and answer it instead of going about the kinds of evidence into objective and subjective.

Just give me the lines in your post where you tell readers here that evidence is ______________ etc., etc., etc., then you can allege next that there are two kinds, etc.

But first what it is.



Yrreg


See that wasn’t so hard, you were clearly able to find for yourself where I described what is subjective and objective evidence within my response to your multiple questions which included …

...how many kinds there are...


If this were an examination, the examiner would expect the answer given to address “how many kinds there are” when they pose that question. Clearly you are no examiner and this is not an examination, regardless of whatever tenure you might like to think you have.

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 08:10 AM
Asking for something from your opponents (such as evidence for a claim or the definition of a term) for then to ignore the answer or come up with ridiculous reasons for why it 'doesn't count' (or in this case, as so often, both:rolleyes:) is a common CT tactic. What it's doing in the R&P forum is beyond me. Perhaps we should put the forum in quarantine so a further spreading is prevented.

Beerina
19th November 2008, 08:35 AM
And yrreg doesn't believe in Odin any more than we do.

Which raises an interesting point, yrreg: why do you reject Odin?


Possibly:


A. I reject Odin because this other religion, which I believe without proof, says Odin doesn't exist.

or

B. Above, plus I have had an epiphanal moment or two in which I realized the God of the Bible actually existed, talked to me, or so on.

Hokulele
19th November 2008, 09:05 AM
Well, that means that atheists now have more work to do to also point out to these exiguous adherents of restored non-Christian religions, that there is no God and no gods whatsoever, period.


Not really. The only person I have ever met who subscribes to Odin-worship (along with numerous other gods) was quite nice, and certainly didn't have a problem with my being an atheist and failing to believe in her gods. Personally, I do not really care what others believe, as long as it does not infringe on others' rights (including my right to disagree with their beliefs).

And the traditional theists of the Abrahamic faiths can in some way gladden themselves for some relief, because atheists' combative concentration on monotheists and their God could be diverted somehow, atheists now having to also attend to the enlightenment of the exiguous adherents of these newly restored pagan religions, so that they will become atheists, thereby the world and mankind will experience more benefit from atheism as atheists win them over to their atheism camp.


Nowhere in my posts have I ever expressed any interest in "converting" anyone to atheism. I just want them to respect my right to consider their god(s) to be mythical.

Oh, and does your new atheist-fetish indicate that you will leave the poor Buddists alone?

Congratulations!


Umm, thanks, I guess.

*Shrug*


I think Hokulele you are really getting somewhere with this Odin business.


Now if you could only get somewhere in understanding paganism.

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 09:31 AM
Nowhere in my posts have I ever expressed any interest in "converting" anyone to atheism. You need not. The fundamentalist Christians assume that because fundamentalist Christianity is obsessive about converting people to their cause, every other religion as well as atheists must be, too. When you're out to get everyone, you inevitably develop the feeling they're out to get you, too.

1. Develop stereotype.
2. Confirmation bias.
And so on.

yrreg
19th November 2008, 01:09 PM
[...]

Quote [ from Yrreg ]:
You should now also go and preach to the adherents of the ancient restored Norsemen's gods, that their gods don't exist,...

Why should I do that? As long as they don't attempt to force their beliefs on me in any way I am perfectly content to let them have their delusions. If they choose to openly discuss the evidence, or lack thereof, for their beliefs by visiting a public forum in which people discuss that sort of thing then I am willing to debate the issue with them, but I'll leave the preaching to you.

[...]



Why should I do that? As long as they don't attempt to force their beliefs on me in any way I am perfectly content to let them have their delusions.

Considering that you yourself said that you were a Christian before, and you are now a combative atheist, who is forcing you now to believe in God, or to return to the belief in God, but your own blindness to see the light of reason and intelligence?


Posted by Foster Zygote


http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?p=4189171#post4189171

Posted by yrreg
Anything transcendental there and did you miss anything when you were a non-atheist?

[...]

I'd have to say that the only thing I missed as a theist was rational consistency within my world-view. And maybe guiltless masturbation.




You present kind of rational consistency has been bought with hurdles to your heart and blinders to your mind.

It is all wilful straying from the light of reason and intelligence to follow the dictate of your psychology of convenience.

That is why I perceive that with ex-Christian atheists, first is the psychology of self-convenience, then the abuse of logic to rationalize one's desertion from the light.

And that also is the mindset of combative atheists mutatis mutandis.



Yrreg

zooterkin
19th November 2008, 01:23 PM
Why should I do that? As long as they don't attempt to force their beliefs on me in any way I am perfectly content to let them have their delusions.

Considering that you yourself said that you were a Christian before, and you are now a combative atheist, who is forcing you now to believe in God, or to return to the belief in God, but your own blindness to see the light of reason and intelligence?


You present kind of rational consistency has been bought with hurdles to your heart and blinders to your mind.

It is all wilful straying from the light of reason and intelligence to follow the dictate of your psychology of convenience.

That is why I perceive that with ex-Christian atheists, first is the psychology of self-convenience, then the abuse of logic to rationalize one's desertion from the light.


You ask who is attempting force people to change, and then use phrases like the ones I've highlighted?

:bs:

Dunstan
19th November 2008, 01:35 PM
yrreg, do you consider yourself a "combative Christian"?

yrreg
19th November 2008, 01:51 PM
If this were an examination it would require the examiner to actually have what they considered to be a correct answer. So what do think that answer should be?





Well, I’ll let you do that.




See that wasn’t so hard, you were clearly able to find for yourself where I described what is subjective and objective evidence within my response to your multiple questions which included …



If this were an examination, the examiner would expect the answer given to address “how many kinds there are” when they pose that question. Clearly you are no examiner and this is not an examination, regardless of whatever tenure you might like to think you have.

You still insist that you answered the question What is evidence in your earlier post, here reproduced below?



[ Posted by yrreg ]
Since atheists love to bring up the word evidence in order to not have to think at all, please then tell the readers of this thread what you know about evidence, how many kinds there are and of what strength they are for what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man, who else but man?

Okay, let's start off right away.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.




You are confused; evidence requires thinking both in its acquisition and analysis.

As for types of evidence there are basically two kinds, objective and subjective. Although some might say that subjective evidence is not really evidence, sometimes it is all that can be obtained, particularly when considering a subject like “what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man”.

Given your usually loaded questions, I will just focus on the definitions (in my own words) of those two types of evidence.

Subjective evidence – Dependent on the subject relating the evidence and the circumstances involved, although sometimes reproducible, generally not consistent in independently controlled experiments. The key word is subjective or dependent on the subject being tested.

Objective evidence- Preferably attained by calibrated measuring equipment (although not always possible) under strict controlled and double blind testing to reduce potential influences of subjects or testers. Also, it would be reproducible to a high degree of accuracy independently or in other words with different subjects, testers and equipment at some other location.

I do not know or care if those definitions (in my own words) were under your 50 word count requirement.






I can only surmise that perhaps you have used up all the available characters of that particular font.


Okay, point out and reproduce it in your next post here the line in the above quoted message from you, where you answered the question What is evidence.

Anyway, if you know what is evidence, tell me now in your next contribution to this thread, what is evidence.

This answer to the question What is evidence was given by PixyMisa:

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

I find it interesting and I am studying it and perhaps will do a thread on it and invite PixyMisa to interact with me there.


But, please in your case, please just tell me what is evidence, in your own words, not more than fifty.




Yrreg

yrreg
19th November 2008, 02:01 PM
Did someone here say that I am using force to shove Foster Zygote, ex-Christian now combative atheist, to return to God?


I have the impression that the man does not know the difference between pedagogical exhortation and force.

For force you have to go to the Soviet Russian atheists-communists, who hated theists that they killed them by the thousands and destroyed their churches.

But atheism is no longer the flavor of the times in Russia, not even among the politically ambitious, now the trend is membership in the Russian Orthodox Church, their traditional branch of Christianity, and yes they are converting to Christian churches in conspicuous numbers.



Yrreg

Third Eye Open
19th November 2008, 02:01 PM
Just for you, Yrreg:) http://songza.com/z/xoyw48

I surrender my soul
Odin hear my call
One day I'll sit beside your throne
In Valhalla's great hall
Like so many before me
I'll die with honor and pride

The right of the warrior
Forever to fight by your side
Send a sign, raise the sail
Wave a last goodbye
Destiny is calling
Immortality be mine

Call the witch to cast the runes
Weave a magic spell
We who die in battle are born
Not for heaven, not for hell

[Bridge:]
We are sons of Odin
The fire we burn inside
Is the legacy of warrior kings
Who reign above in the sky

[Chorus:]
I will lead the charge
My sword into the wind
Sons of Odin fight
To die and live again
Viking ships cross the sea
In cold wind and rain
Sail into the black of night
Magic stars our guiding light

Today the blood of battle
Upon my weapons will never dry
Many I'll send into the ground
Laughing as they die

[Repeat bridge, chorus]

Place my body on a ship
And burn it on the sea
Let my spirit rise
Valkyries carry me
Take me to Valhalla
Where my brothers wait for me
Fires burn into the sky
My spirit will never die

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 02:09 PM
Deyr fé,
deyja frændr,
deyr sjálfr et sama;
ek veit einn,
at aldri deyr:
dómr of dauðan hvern.
--Håvamål, Gestaþáttr, number 77

Cattle die, kinsmen die
the self dies likewise;
I know one, which never dies:
the reputation of dead men.

Or troll, depending:D.

Frozenwolf150
19th November 2008, 02:29 PM
Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.


Try again, but do some really serious and concentrated thinking first, and yes, limit what is evidence to fifty words or less.

What is evidence?

I already did in my previous post. Do I have to use monosyllabic vocabulary as well? (Not that I would even if you'd asked.)

Show me a picture of God, a recording of God designing new forms of life, or a manuscript of something God has written himself.

For force you have to go to the Soviet Russian atheists-communists, who hated theists that they killed them by the thousands and destroyed their churches.
I can't even begin to count all the ways that statement was stupid. Stalinist Russia practiced Communism as a religion, upheld a system of absolute morals based on Communism as the ultimate good that justifies all means to its end, and embraced the non-Darwinian idea of "proletarian evolution." It was ideological utopian thinking that motivated the worst atrocities in history. There was no overabundance of skepticism or critical thinking in Soviet Russia.

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 02:31 PM
Show me a picture of God, a recording of God designing new forms of life, or a manuscript of something God has written himself.You forgot the conditions: the picture has to be less than 50kb, and the manuscript less than 100 words, and the answer must be in by two days and given by you. Oh, and there are three hidden criteria I won't reveal until after you give the answer. Failure to meet all the criteria listed and not listed will automatically and instantly disqualify the evidence, disregarding its validity or rationality.

{/yrreg}

:D

I already did in my previous post.Doesn't matter. yrreg doesn't want evidence. He's a troll and if you think you're going to make him stop playing games with you by being serious... you're going to be disappointed.

Foster Zygote
19th November 2008, 03:05 PM
Considering that you yourself said that you were a Christian before, and you are now a combative atheist, who is forcing you now to believe in God?
Let's see...

There are people here who wish to declare that the United States is a Christian nation, implying a theocracy.

There are people who wish to restrict the teaching and even advancement of science because it threatens their religious dogma.

There are people who wish to introduce officially led prayer as a part of the daily activities in public schools. (Before you jump at an answer for this one you should imagine that your children are attending a public school in which they are expected to participate in Islamic prayer or Buddhist meditation.)

There are people who want to place the Ten Commandments in courtrooms.

There are people who want to legally repress the rights of other people who engage in activities that they object to for purely religious reasons.

You present kind of rational consistency has been bought with hurdles to your heart and blinders to your mind.
My heart is just fine, thank you. I have a beautiful wife and a beautiful son, both of whom I love far, far more than my own life. I have many friends and family whom I also love above myself. And I am kind to people because I value them as human beings and am concerned for their well being. I don't need the fear of punishment by an imaginary being to make me do right by others.

As for my mind: I have seen a tiny fraction of the universe as revealed by reason, and it has made the universe described by my former religion seem provincial and pale by comparison. As Carl Sagan said: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

It is all wilful straying from the light of reason and intelligence to follow the dictate of your psychology of convenience.
Oh right, because you think that I rejected Christianity, and all religions, because I want to behave in a terribly hurtful and selfish way toward others, that I wish to rape and murder and steal and cook goats improperly. This argument is made according to the dictates of your psychology of convenience.

That is why I perceive that with ex-Christian atheists, first is the psychology of self-convenience, then the abuse of logic to rationalize one's desertion from the light.
I suspect that you are, like most bigots, deficient in self esteem, leading you to need to assure yourself that you are better than others, even if those others are simply stereotypes that you construct with imaginary features chosen for their obvious inferiority to yourself.

And that also is the mindset of combative atheists mutatis mutandis.
"Combative atheists" being those who tell you that you are wrong when you try to tell them that they are amoral. That is the mindset of a fool.

Foster Zygote
19th November 2008, 03:10 PM
You still insist that you answered the question What is evidence in your earlier post, here reproduced below?

Okay, point out and reproduce it in your next post here the line in the above quoted message from you, where you answered the question What is evidence.

Anyway, if you know what is evidence, tell me now in your next contribution to this thread, what is evidence.

This answer to the question What is evidence was given by PixyMisa:

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

I find it interesting and I am studying it and perhaps will do a thread on it and invite PixyMisa to interact with me there.

But, please in your case, please just tell me what is evidence, in your own words, not more than fifty.

Yrreg

Excuse me Gerry, but I have addressed your request, and have seemingly been ignored.
We are asking for scientific evidence of the existence of your god. That means that the evidence must be empirical (dependent on evidence or consequences that can be observed with human senses) and repeatable.

Now, how about that evidence for the existence of your god?

Now, how about that evidence for the existence of your god?

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 03:12 PM
"Combative atheists" being those who tell you that you are wrong when you try to tell them that they are amoral. That is the mindset of a fool.Even if yrreg is a troll, it is remarkable how many just don't grasp the very simple concept that if you poke a bear with a stick, it gets angry. The idea that maybe American atheists are angry and bitter because of Christians going out of their way to make life as difficult for nonbelievers as they can, or that maybe gays suffer from suicidal thoughts and depression because they're being denied rights and declared abominable sinners... in short, the idea that when you say or do something to someone, your action causes a reaction, physical or emotional in that person...

...is beyond their understanding. It's creepy, actually.

Foster Zygote
19th November 2008, 03:16 PM
For force you have to go to the Soviet Russian atheists-communists, who hated theists that they killed them by the thousands and destroyed their churches.

Actually, they hated anything that wasn't Communist. Many atheists were put to death or imprisoned because they were found to be, or merely thought to be opposed to Communism.

This was all covered in that thread of Plumjam's that I linked to. For someone who claims to be keen to learn you sure ignore a lot of data.

Foster Zygote
19th November 2008, 03:20 PM
Since we're doing song lyrics:

Faithless - Rush

I've got my own moral compass to steer by
A guiding star beats a spirit in the sky
And all the preaching voices -
Empty vessels of dreams so loud
As they move among the crowd
Fools and thieves are well disguised
In the temple and market place

Like a stone in the river
Against the floods of spring
I will quietly resist

Like the willows in the wind
Or the cliffs along the ocean
I will quietly resist

I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me

I've got my own spirit level for balance
To tell if my choice is leaning up or down
And all the shouting voices
Try to throw me off my course
Some by sermon, some by force
Fools and thieves are dangerous
In the temple and market place

Like a forest bows to winter
Beneath the deep white silence
I will quietly resist

Like a flower in the desert
That only blooms at night
I will quietly resist

godless dave
19th November 2008, 03:58 PM
Well, if such a kind of irrelevant but comforting comparison subserves your self-reinforcement to continue to be blind to reason and intelligence, I will not begrudge you your consuelo de bobo.


How is it irrelevant? And you still haven't answered why you reject Odin. Are you afraid to die in battle?

Safe-Keeper
19th November 2008, 04:00 PM
I've found that with fundies, if the analogy makes God look bad, ergo, it's invalid regardless of how much the two items actually have in common.

And you still haven't answered why you reject Odin. He has. He rejects Odin because Odin apparently never said he was a god. Apparently, in yrreg's world, all you need to do to achieve a 100% loyal following is to utter the words "I am your god".

Third Eye Open
19th November 2008, 04:29 PM
I've found that with fundies, if the analogy makes God look bad, ergo, it's invalid regardless of how much the two items actually have in common.

He has. He rejects Odin because Odin apparently never said he was a god. Apparently, in yrreg's world, all you need to do to achieve a 100% loyal following is to utter the words "I am your god".

Yrreg!!!


I AM YOUR GOD!

Elizabeth I
19th November 2008, 07:31 PM
I think it is because of things he wants to do and does not want to feel guilty about: like staying sober .....

Or having two eyes.

Or living with a budgie instead of a raven...

Roboramma
19th November 2008, 08:32 PM
yyreg, please respond to this post:

And yrreg doesn't believe in Odin any more than we do.

Which raises an interesting point, yrreg: why do you reject Odin?

The Man
20th November 2008, 07:30 AM
You still insist that you answered the question What is evidence in your earlier post, here reproduced below?

Okay, point out and reproduce it in your next post here the line in the above quoted message from you, where you answered the question What is evidence.


Anyway, if you know what is evidence, tell me now in your next contribution to this thread, what is evidence.

That post itself is evidence, that I did answer your questions in my own words. Your subsequent posts do not disprove the evidence that I did answer your questions but only provides evidence that you were not satisfied with the answers I gave. If you are claiming that my answers were in some way incorrect that would presuppose that you have what you would think to be the correct answers. I ask you again to present what you would consider ‘in your own words’ (use as many as you need) to be the correct answer and then perhaps we could discuss how they might differ from the answers I gave.


This answer to the question What is evidence was given by PixyMisa:
Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.
I find it interesting and I am studying it and perhaps will do a thread on it and invite PixyMisa to interact with me there.


But, please in your case, please just tell me what is evidence, in your own words, not more than fifty.

Yrreg

If you find PixyMisa’s answer to be more to your liking then mine, by all means run with it. However, because of your statement “I am studying it” it is evident that you do not currently have what you would consider to be the correct answer and thus you would have no basis to claim that any answer given is either incorrect or does not answer your question. Your only evidence that my post did not answer your question is based only on your subjective interpretation of that post. As subjective evidence is dependent on the subject presenting the evidence you will have to present specifically what you think is deficient in the answers I gave. Remember that an answer is just an answer and once given the only debate can be whether it is correct or is satisfactory to you. The former can usually be objectively established and the latter is purely subjective.

Mister Agenda
20th November 2008, 09:23 AM
Later, later please, I will do a thread on complaints of atheists against God.

In the meantime don't feel so aggrieved, unless you are suffering any kind of discriminations from God or from theists, in which case if the discriminations from theists are susceptible to judicial litigation, please proceed to your courts in America.

No, I am not any American citizen living in America; I am writing from the Philippines.

Yrreg

Err, I answered a question you asked directly, why don't you want to address it now? My guess is my reply is inconvenient to your assertions about why Christians become atheists.

Why would I feel aggrieved? I analyzed the source material and concluded the God worshipped by the Hebrews was not Just, and therefore not consistent with a definition of God as omnibenevolent. For a couple of decades after that I stayed open to the possibility that an omnibenevolent deity DOES exist--I only rejected the notion that the biblical YHWH is that being. Eventually I dropped the hypothesis of the unspecified omnibenevolent deity for lack of evidence, lack of strong arguments, and learning of good alternative explanations coming from science for phenomena that I previously thought were scientifically unexplainable. I stopped believing in paranormal phenomena before I stopped believing in God.

I'm not aggrieved at all. It's no skin off my nose what ancient Middle Eastern tribes did or believed, and the people who passed off the information as being true without really examining it didn't know any better. The people who try to suppress knowledge of evolution or attempt to promote Christianity at taxpayer expense today don't know any better. They do what they believe is right and so do I. That does sometimes involve litigation, particularly here in South Carolina, litigation that I am peripherally involved in. Thanks for the advice anyway, though.

The Man
20th November 2008, 09:55 AM
Yrreg, I think it is your question that is confusing you most and not so much my answer. You seem to be seeking an answer to ‘What is evidence’ as some definitive assertion without having considered the fundamental nature of evidence. In fact, everything is evidence of something, even if only of itself, so the only definitive or defining aspects of evidence are whether that evidence is subjective or objective and what it might be evidence of, if not only of itself.

yrreg
20th November 2008, 01:29 PM
I've found that with fundies, if the analogy makes God look bad, ergo, it's invalid regardless of how much the two items actually have in common.

He has. He rejects Odin because Odin apparently never said he was a god. Apparently, in yrreg's world, all you need to do to achieve a 100% loyal following is to utter the words "I am your god".


Haha, gotcha!

Read the text in bold below.



Posted by godless dave
They are both gods who some people believe in and others deny. You're trying to understand our reason for rejecting the Christian god, and I'm trying to understand your reason for rejecting Odin.



Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

Did I say that I reject Odin?

I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.

It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.

If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.


Did you read my answer to someone here who also brought up Odin, that Odin was like a slingshot in the days of Odin's believers, but today's God is much more to the nth degree than a slingshot, today's God is in weapon context like a self-guided transcontinental missile with nuclear warhead.

That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.

If you were living in the time and clime of Odin's believers and you are one of them, you would also consider Odin to be more sophisticated than some god of some more primitive people like some illiterate tribe in black Africa.

Tell me, are there folks in Norway today who are taking Odin seriously, and how many of them if any.

By the way, where did you pick up that Odin business, from the same books by the people who got good business writing for atheists and getting you to buy their books?


Get some original reasons for denying God, from your own thinking and experiences in life.


Now, I am sure pretty soon after some more posts have appeared here, someone will bring up Odin again.




Yrreg



See, you guys cannot follow an argument.



Yrreg

Fiona
20th November 2008, 01:37 PM
It is true. Yrreg likes nice new shiny gods.

schlitt
20th November 2008, 01:38 PM
Haha, gotcha!

Read the text in bold below.





See, you guys cannot follow an argument.



Yrreg

You guys?

In response to a singular post.

Someone certainly has trouble following something...

Third Eye Open
20th November 2008, 01:41 PM
Haha, gotcha!


It seems that yrreg thinks he is in a debate of the kind you take in a debate class, where he has to prove an audience that his opponent is wrong, even if it means using tricks and twisty words to obfuscate the issue.

In real life, saying 'Ha, gotcha! You said the wrong thing, I WIN!' doesn't work. The goal is usually to find out what the other persons opinion is, and see if you can understand it, and explain why you disagree. If not, try to explain why you don't understand it.

Your not going to 'win' anything by 'catching' someone saying the wrong thing.

yrreg
20th November 2008, 02:00 PM
For all you guys who dare to answer the question What is evidence, in not more than fifty words, here, imitate the words of PixyMisa, who has so far given some really worth thinking about in a very profound and broad manner, meaning of evidence.




[...]


Quote from Yrreg:
Just give me the lines in your post where you tell readers here that evidence is ______________ etc., etc., etc., then you can allege next that there are two kinds, etc.

But first what it is.


Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.





Otherwise, you guys are just repeating phrases from your masters at marketing their own worn-out pseudo grounds for encouraging you to buy more of their printed swill, to make you feel so secure with your abuse of reason and intelligence to cater to your psychology of self-convenience.

Okay, let's go about this question What is evidence, systematically, like this:

1. Give your name,

2. Answer the question What is evidence, in not more than fifty words, your own words of course.


And that is what PixyMisa has done:

PixyMisa: Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.


And no more about Odin unless you want to end up advocating Odin an obsolete concept of God of the ancient Norsemen in your attitude psychology of combative atheists, just as you defend Stalin to sanitize his atheism.


I will not read anymore anything about evidence, unless you first give your name and then your answer to the question What is evidence.

But of course you have first to do some original thinking with your natural reason and your faculty of intelligence, instead of banking on the swill of your commercially motivated 'me also' atheist writers.

When you mention anything about evidence or even just the word evidence, then go back up to the top of your message before you click on submit, and put there on very top, your name and also your answer to the question What is evidence.

Otherwise when I come across the word evidence I will stop reading further and just proceed to the next post.

And that is what readers to this thread should also do, so as not to waste time with people who prefer to talk about Odin than dwell on reason and intelligence in the matter of the heart and mind of atheists.



Yrreg

Fiona
20th November 2008, 02:07 PM
Otherwise when I come across the word evidence I will stop reading further and just proceed to the next post.

And this will be a change???

yrreg
20th November 2008, 02:09 PM
Haha, gotcha!

Foster Zygote, you are now giving witness to atheism by bringing up your beautiful wife and handsome son and happy family and home.

And you testify to the worth of your peculiar brand of atheism of the combative kind by them.


You could also do such a witnessing and even better if you had continue to believe in God's existence, and use your natural reason and intelligence to see rational consistency with God as the raison d'etre of the whole caboodle of life and the universe.

See the happy homes families of your erstwhile well-adjusted kins and friends who remain true to God and His commandments.


Did you say that they are all hypocrites?



Haha, gotcha!


See, it's all your abuse of logic to satisfy your psychology of self-convenience.

A little honest self-introspection with no holds barred will enable you to see the facts.


Yrreg

Third Eye Open
20th November 2008, 02:22 PM
Yrreg, what is your purpose in this thread? Do you have one?

Safe-Keeper
20th November 2008, 02:34 PM
Yrreg, what is your purpose in this thread? Do you have one?Same purpose as all his other threads.

He is a troll. That, or he's spent too much time in the CT forums as a conspiracy nutter. I honestly can't tell - his CT-ish ways are pretty obvious, but then again, seeing them in R&P is pretty novel, at least to me.

Hokulele
20th November 2008, 02:37 PM
Yrreg, what is your purpose in this thread? Do you have one?


To convince people Christians are illogical?

Third Eye Open
20th November 2008, 02:38 PM
Same purpose as all his other threads.

He is a troll.

So.... you are saying he's trying to sound like a lunatic? To give christians a bad name?


ETA: Ok, Hokulele seems to be on the same track as me....

Dunstan
20th November 2008, 02:54 PM
yrreg, you still haven't answered my question:

Are you a combative Christian?

Foster Zygote
20th November 2008, 03:04 PM
Haha, gotcha!
Are you twelve years old?

Foster Zygote, you are now giving witness to atheism by bringing up your beautiful wife and handsome son and happy family and home.
I am testifying in opposition to your baseless assertion that atheists are amoral and selfish. You have even been so insulting as to imply that atheists would have no reservations about committing rape if they felt they could avoid punishment. I offer my life as an exampe that you are wrong.

And you testify to the worth of your peculiar brand of atheism of the combative kind by them.
Gerry, please explain exactly what you feel qualifies me as a "combative atheist". So far, all I have done is disagree with you and point out false statements that you have made. If, as I suspect, this is what qualifies me as "combative" in your view then it says more about you than it does about me.

You could also do such a witnessing and even better if you had continue to believe in God's existence, and use your natural reason and intelligence to see rational consistency with God as the raison d'etre of the whole caboodle of life and the universe.
Which god?

See the happy homes families of your erstwhile well-adjusted kins and friends who remain true to God and His commandments.

Did you say that they are all hypocrites?
No, I did not. If they are happy then that makes me happy too. I have never suggested that atheism is the only true path to a happy life. I have only disputed your assertion that athiests are amoral by pointing out that I, an atheist, still value the love of my fellow humans as much as I did as a Christian.

So what was that about not being able to follow an argument?

Haha, gotcha!
I had been wondering if you were deliberately obtuse or simply lacking in cleverness. You are quickly convincing me that it is the latter.

You said "Gotcha!" because you felt that Safe-Keeper had missed something you'd said regarding Odin. Yet others have responded to your silly assertion that atheists are amoral by providing examples of atheists who are kind and loving, and you continue to make your self-serving assertions as though those responses did not exist.

Do you comprehend enough to feel embarrassed?

Safe-Keeper
20th November 2008, 03:11 PM
Third Eye Open: Most trolls, like the late JEROME, are in it solely for the attention. Yrreg seems to be no exception.

Third Eye Open
20th November 2008, 03:41 PM
Third Eye Open: Most trolls, like the late JEROME, are in it solely for the attention. Yrreg seems to be no exception.

JEROME is 'late'? That's news to me. Did he actually come out and say he was a troll and call it quits, or are you just calling him 'late' because he's been gone for a while?

Safe-Keeper
20th November 2008, 03:55 PM
I call him late because the mods had enough of him and killed him silently in his bed.

(He got banned some time ago)

Third Eye Open
20th November 2008, 04:15 PM
I call him late because the mods had enough of him and killed him silently in his bed.

(He got banned some time ago)

Really?? Wow, I guess I missed out on the good stuff. He always seemed civil enough in the posts that I saw of his.

Dancing David
20th November 2008, 04:36 PM
Even if yrreg is a troll, it is remarkable how many just don't grasp the very simple concept that if you poke a bear with a stick, it gets angry. The idea that maybe American atheists are angry and bitter because of Christians going out of their way to make life as difficult for nonbelievers as they can, or that maybe gays suffer from suicidal thoughts and depression because they're being denied rights and declared abominable sinners... in short, the idea that when you say or do something to someone, your action causes a reaction, physical or emotional in that person...

...is beyond their understanding. It's creepy, actually.

Nah, yrreg hasn't even hit his stride, check out this thread , where suicide and masturbation are compared to buddhism:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77078

I can't find the famous Lisa Simpson stuff.

godless dave
20th November 2008, 04:39 PM
See the happy homes families of your erstwhile well-adjusted kins and friends who remain true to God and His commandments.


None of my well-adjusted relatives and friends are Christians.

Mojo
21st November 2008, 03:59 AM
It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.

If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.


In other words, if you had been born in a different time and place, where people believed in a god other than the one you currently believe in, you would deny your God.

Your belief in God is revealed as nothing more than a social construct.

zooterkin
21st November 2008, 04:20 AM
It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.

It's the name of one of their gods.


If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.

<snip>

That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.

Odin was one of a pantheon, similar to the Greek and Roman collections of deities. You cannot say that is the same god as your Abrahamic singular (yet triune) god.

There is every reason to keep asking the question. Why do you choose not to believe in Odin? It seems your only reason for believing in god is to conform. That hardly guarantees you are right. If society in your country was atheist, would you be an atheist too?

ETA: Mojo has just edited his post to make the same point. Please, Miss, he's copying! :)

Foster Zygote
21st November 2008, 05:42 AM
I think what Gerry's saying (he seems to be too busy constructing people out of straw to really explain it clearly) is that gods like Odin were earlier, imperfect attempts by humans to know God, whereas his modern version of the god of Abraham is the final attainment of true knowledge of God. If this is the case then I don't know how he can claim that the quest for God that he describes doesn't have a lot further to go.

And of course there's the delicious irony of him analogizing his god with the ultimate weapon of death and destruction.

"Odin? Feh! He's a mere Jeff Dahmer. My god is like Vlad Tsepesh and Stalin rolled into one!"

zooterkin
21st November 2008, 06:19 AM
I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.


Well, about 52 days every year are named after him, while Christ only gets one. Odin is 52 times more relevant.

Seismosaurus
21st November 2008, 06:33 AM
As the stomach is built to seek food and water, so the brain is built to seek God.

Possibly. It is a reasonable supposition, given how prevalent religion is over time, that there is something in the human brain that tends to project god onto the world around us. Not everybody, though. I don't.

And of course, the fact that people's imaginations does create this construct far more often than not says NOTHING about whether it exists in reality or not.

You see, atheism is unnatural.

So is clothing. What's your point?

What is normal with man is to know the existence of God, that is his instinct.

What is abnormal, unnatural is for man to deny the existence of God and to bring up so many difficulties against His existence, which are only so many rationalizations.

And here you cross the line from talking about god as an experience people have to talking about him as a being who exists. If you want to make that assertion then you need to provide some evidence for it. Can you?

39 years I've been an atheist. 20 - 25 years I've been an atheist who put serious thought into the matter. I've NEVER found evidence for egod's existence. I've asked believe after believer, literally hundreds of them, and not one has ever been able to show me any.

Can you? Please? I literally beg you, please show me something, anything to indicate that there might be a god. Please.

This is the expected reaction of people going into abnormal and unnatural behavior, abuse logic to cater to their personal psychology of self-convenience.

No, it isn't. As I've pointed out to you twice in this thread, wanting to do what you want is an absolutely moronic and nonsensical reason to be an atheist.

As for guiltless masturbation, get married, then you can spare yourself the angst of masturbation.

Let's not bring our hobbies into this, shall we? :)

Mashuna
21st November 2008, 07:57 AM
To convince people Christians are illogical?


Maybe Yrreg could help with some evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

Safe-Keeper
21st November 2008, 08:05 AM
What is normal with man is to know the existence of God, that is his instinct.
Wishful thinking and other fallacious methods of thought are natural as well. They're still undesirable.

The Man
21st November 2008, 08:22 AM
For all you guys who dare to answer the question What is evidence, in not more than fifty words, here, imitate the words of PixyMisa, who has so far given some really worth thinking about in a very profound and broad manner, meaning of evidence.


If you find it so profound and broad then please supply some support for your assertions within the confines of that “broad manner, meaning”


Otherwise, you guys are just repeating phrases from your masters at marketing their own worn-out pseudo grounds for encouraging you to buy more of their printed swill, to make you feel so secure with your abuse of reason and intelligence to cater to your psychology of self-convenience.


Whom on this thread has been “repeating phrases from” or just following the doctrines of any “masters” to make them “feel so secure with your abuse of reason and intelligence to cater to your psychology of self-convenience”, other then yourself?



Okay, let's go about this question What is evidence, systematically, like this:

1. Give your name,

2. Answer the question What is evidence, in not more than fifty words, your own words of course.


And that is what PixyMisa has done:

PixyMisa: Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.


And no more about Odin unless you want to end up advocating Odin an obsolete concept of God of the ancient Norsemen in your attitude psychology of combative atheists, just as you defend Stalin to sanitize his atheism.

What makes you think anyone on this thread has defended “Stalin to sanitize his atheism”. If mentioning Odin to make some point relevant to this thread somehow imbues one with some potential for advocating Odin, in your opinion, then you must want to end up advocating both Odin and Stalin, by your own reasoning.


I will not read anymore anything about evidence, unless you first give your name and then your answer to the question What is evidence.

But of course you have first to do some original thinking with your natural reason and your faculty of intelligence, instead of banking on the swill of your commercially motivated 'me also' atheist writers.


In contrast to you and your not so original thinking, lack of natural reason and intellectual fallacies while it seems only “banking on the swill of your commercially motivated 'me also'” theistic writers.


When you mention anything about evidence or even just the word evidence, then go back up to the top of your message before you click on submit, and put there on very top, your name and also your answer to the question What is evidence.

Otherwise when I come across the word evidence I will stop reading further and just proceed to the next post.


You have obviously been doing just that for quite some time now (and I don't mean just of this thread).


And that is what readers to this thread should also do, so as not to waste time with people who prefer to talk about Odin than dwell on reason and intelligence in the matter of the heart and mind of atheists.

Yrreg


We are apparently wasting time with you in our attempts to get you to “dwell on reason and intelligence in the matter of the heart and mind of atheists” while you prefer to simply assert you unsubstantiated claims and extol the significance of what is apparently your God over all others. Why should we ignore other Gods simply because you choose to, when we are not ignoring you and what is apparently your particular God of choice?



Where is your evidence, yrreg, for anything that you assert?

yrreg
21st November 2008, 05:32 PM
yrreg, you still haven't answered my question:

Are you a combative Christian?


No, I am a pacifist, no combat with me against anyone or anything, just a hobby of intellectual aerobics.

Did you read what I said from the start of my sojourn here, I am a postgraduate Catholic?

If you are curious, look that phrase up with the search function here (shade of self-vanity, I grant), postgraduate Catholic, and read what I say about being a postgraduate Catholic, the only one in my own genre of Christian worldview-ers.



If you guys want to be atheists and want to blame God for your turning to atheism and talk hostilely against Him and theists, that is your privilege.

I just love to examine your pseudo reasoning and come to the confirmation again and again that you have abused and are still abusing logic, an invention of man to check on his reasoning process, in order to present a facade of rationality to your psychology of self-convenience.


What are these conveniences?

Sex, or call it love that is erotic, greed or lucre, glamor, power, fame, or at least acceptance by the boys and the girls, to be in the vogue -- haha, gotcha!

And of course rational consistency and guiltless masturbation ala Foster Zygote.


Okay, all together now: theists, atheists, and Buddhist non-selves, and whatever brands you portray, say after me:

Haha, gotcha!



By the way, for our mutual intellectual aerobics, please if you care to play the evidence game, like atheists who just love to dangle that word, evidence, and another one, meaningless, please if you care, place your name at the top of your message here, then answer after you name, the question what is evidence, and what is your idea about meaningless.

I am collecting your thoughts on what is evidence and what is a meaningless question, very enlightening to examine the authors on the basis of their thoughts if any of substance on these two words, evidence and meaningless.



Yrreg

yrreg
21st November 2008, 05:45 PM
That post itself is evidence, that I did answer your questions in my own words. Your subsequent posts do not disprove the evidence that I did answer your questions but only provides evidence that you were not satisfied with the answers I gave. If you are claiming that my answers were in some way incorrect that would presuppose that you have what you would think to be the correct answers. I ask you again to present what you would consider ‘in your own words’ (use as many as you need) to be the correct answer and then perhaps we could discuss how they might differ from the answers I gave.



If you find PixyMisa’s answer to be more to your liking then mine, by all means run with it. However, because of your statement “I am studying it” it is evident that you do not currently have what you would consider to be the correct answer and thus you would have no basis to claim that any answer given is either incorrect or does not answer your question. Your only evidence that my post did not answer your question is based only on your subjective interpretation of that post. As subjective evidence is dependent on the subject presenting the evidence you will have to present specifically what you think is deficient in the answers I gave. Remember that an answer is just an answer and once given the only debate can be whether it is correct or is satisfactory to you. The former can usually be objectively established and the latter is purely subjective.


I do have my own answer to the question What is evidence, but I am trying to find out how people here understand evidence, specifically what it is.

You answer a What is it question this way:

For example, It's a bird, it's a comet, it's an airplane, it's Superman!


Okay, now just tell me what is evidence; PixyMisa says it is data that is independent, objective, testable pointing to a conclusion -- pretty good, but still not good enough for men in the street with a critical attitude.



Yrreg

PixyMisa
21st November 2008, 06:16 PM
If you guys want to be atheists and want to blame God for your turning to atheism and talk hostilely against Him and theists, that is your privilege.
We don't blame God for anything. He doesn't exist.

I just love to examine your pseudo reasoning and come to the confirmation again and again that you have abused and are still abusing logic, an invention of man to check on his reasoning process, in order to present a facade of rationality to your psychology of self-convenience.
Yes, yes, whatever you say.

So, how are you coming with that evidence stuff?

What are these conveniences?

Sex, or call it love that is erotic, greed or lucre, glamor, power, fame, or at least acceptance by the boys and the girls, to be in the vogue -- haha, gotcha![

And of course rational consistency and guiltless masturbation ala Foster Zygote.
I see.

So rational consistency is now a mere "convenience"?

I shouldn't be surprised at your position on that.

Okay, all together now: theists, atheists, and Buddhist non-selves, and whatever brands you portray, say after me:
Haha, gotcha!
Twelve? I was thinking maybe eight.

By the way, for our mutual intellectual aerobics, please if you care to play the evidence game, like atheists who just love to dangle that word, evidence, and another one, meaningless, please if you care, place your name at the top of your message here, then answer after you name, the question what is evidence, and what is your idea about meaningless.
I already answered the evidence one.

Meaningless: Without meaning.

I am collecting your thoughts on what is evidence and what is a meaningless question, very enlightening to examine the authors on the basis of their thoughts if any of substance on these two words, evidence and meaningless.
And we are waiting for any evidence of the existence of your God. We have been waiting a lot longer than you.

Fiona
21st November 2008, 07:06 PM
You know there is really no point in continuing with this. Yrreg is just insulting people for fun. I think it is because he is a believer in Odin and therefore has to get drunk all the time: for he is not one to give up his god just so he can please himself and stay sober.

But honestly, arguing with a drunk is not smart: they are terribly repetitive :)

Foster Zygote
21st November 2008, 07:56 PM
It was fun for a while, but now it feels like that Simpsons bit in which Bart writes "INSERT BRAIN HERE" on the back of Homer's head and then Homer starts spinning around on the floor trying to read the back of his own head. At first everyone laughs. Then the laughter fades and everyone gets uncomfortable as he continues to spin around and around and around.

Dancing David
22nd November 2008, 07:00 AM
So.... you are saying he's trying to sound like a lunatic? To give christians a bad name?


ETA: Ok, Hokulele seems to be on the same track as me....

To convince people Christians are illogical?

:D :D

zooterkin
22nd November 2008, 07:06 AM
Maybe Yrreg could help with some evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

Now, there's something I'd like to see, DOC and yrreg in the same thread. Has it happened yet?

Safe-Keeper
22nd November 2008, 07:40 AM
I'd pay to see yrreg, plumjam, DOC, Malerin and JEROME in the same thread:D.

You know there is really no point in continuing with this. Yrreg is just insulting people for fun. I think it is because he is a believer in Odin and therefore has to get drunk all the time: for he is not one to give up his god just so he can please himself and stay sober.

But honestly, arguing with a drunk is not smart: they are terribly repetitive :)It's been going on for seven pages. Maybe he's planning to become the new DOC?

GeeMack
22nd November 2008, 08:06 AM
I'd pay to see yrreg, plumjam, DOC, Malerin and JEROME in the same thread:D.


... and Radrook.

The Man
22nd November 2008, 09:04 AM
I do have my own answer to the question What is evidence, but I am trying to find out how people here understand evidence, specifically what it is.

Well by all means then please enlighten us, in your own words and again use a many as you need.


You answer a What is it question this way:
For example, It's a bird, it's a comet, it's an airplane, it's Superman!

You asked for the answer in my own words, which I gave you. Now you what it in some specific format, perhaps I should start my own thread.

“Unsatisfied with an answer given as he requested, why should anyone consider placating yrreg?”


Okay, now just tell me what is evidence; PixyMisa says it is data that is independent, objective, testable pointing to a conclusion -- pretty good, but still not good enough for men in the street with a critical attitude.



Yrreg

You seem to think a dialog consists only of you asking for things, passing judgment on them (without providing support for that judgment), then asking for it again with more constraints when you are not satisfied with what you get. A dialog is a two way exchange of ideas; at this juncture it is your turn to pony up. I answered your questions in my own words as you requested, you now need to first provide your “own answer to the question What is evidence” in your own words and you can use as many as you need.

Frozenwolf150
22nd November 2008, 01:24 PM
It was fun for a while, but now it feels like that Simpsons bit in which Bart writes "INSERT BRAIN HERE" on the back of Homer's head and then Homer starts spinning around on the floor trying to read the back of his own head. At first everyone laughs. Then the laughter fades and everyone gets uncomfortable as he continues to spin around and around and around.

Unfortunately, Yrreg doesn't seem capable of reading something that's been written right in front of his face, let alone the back of his head. Examples include people's explicitly stated reasons for becoming atheists, where atheists get their morals from and what those morals are, the definition of evidence, and pretty much every rational counterpoint to the strawmen he's been posting. (Of course, I guess this means he'll never be able to read the unflattering limerick about bonobos I just wrote on the back of his head while he wasn't looking.)

Hokulele
22nd November 2008, 03:15 PM
... and Radrook.


With a touch of Stone Island.

Tricky
22nd November 2008, 04:18 PM
I'd pay to see yrreg, plumjam, DOC, Malerin and JEROME in the same thread:D.
You'd be disappointed. There is something similar to "honor among thieves" when it comes to holders of woo beliefs. They may attack each other like crazy when in their own little atheist-forbidding forums, but out in public, they pretty much ignore each other and go on their separate rants. Same is true in CT forums. Two troofers may have theories which directly contradict (like one will say there were no planes while another will say the planes were robot-piloted) yet rarely will one come out here at JREF, and challenge the other. Instead, they join forces to attack the debunkers.

I guess it's like people defend their own family, even if some of them are a little... well... funny.

yrreg
22nd November 2008, 07:32 PM
Haha, gotcha!



Quote by Third Eye Open:
Yrreg, what is your purpose in this thread? Do you have one?
Same purpose as all his other threads.

He is a troll. That, or he's spent too much time in the CT forums as a conspiracy nutter. I honestly can't tell - his CT-ish ways are pretty obvious, but then again, seeing them in R&P is pretty novel, at least to me.


I have never sent any post to the CT (Conspiracy Theories board), but now that you erroneously alleged so, I looked it up and to my self-delight erh vanity, noticed that I am being cited there.



Yrreg

PixyMisa
22nd November 2008, 08:21 PM
Haha, gotcha!
Eight? I meant six.

RandFan
22nd November 2008, 10:56 PM
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me! Because?

And why no prohibition against slavery? Why no rules against rape. What about beating one's spouse? Why no rules regarding child abuse? What about forgiveness? Why does the bible say it's ok to kill witches and adulterers? Why did Moses order the slaughter of the Amalekites if god doesn't want people to kill?

What good is the Ten Commandments given that there are so many loopholes in the bible to break those laws?

Can't we do better? Hell, don't we do better? I don't need the Ten Commandments to know that murder is wrong.

Sideroxylon
22nd November 2008, 11:18 PM
I do have my own answer to the question What is evidence, but I am trying to find out how people here understand evidence, specifically what it is. [...]
Okay, now just tell me what is evidence; PixyMisa says it is data that is independent, objective, testable pointing to a conclusion -- pretty good, but still not good enough for men in the street with a critical attitude.
Yrreg

I reckon what can be called evidence is pretty broad. It could be empirical, anecdotal, from authority, from tradition, or even gut feeling. What is important is how that evidence is verified and weighted. As demonstrated by its track record, the scientific method is the best way to do this.
That’s good enough for this man in the street with a critical attitude. I think in this game it’s traditional to show “yours” after we have shown “ours” so let’s hear your opinion Yrreg.

yrreg
22nd November 2008, 11:46 PM
I will put up a thread on what is evidence.

In the meantime, if you have any idea of what is evidence, please give it here, with your name first.

Remember, first tell readers what is evidence then what it is good for.

I will give you a hint.

When you are asked what is an orange, first you say what it is, a fruit, then continue to give the characteristics of this fruit, and next also how it is useful to man.

So, to the question what is evidence, tell the asker what it is first, then it's characteristics, and next what is it useful to man for.


So far, only PixyMisa has followed this procedure to answer the question what is evidence.

If you would be better than PixyMisa who gives the idea of what is evidence thus:

It is data that is independent, objective, testable that points to a conclusion.

You have to ask yourself in turn how can the evidence alleged to point to a conclusion endow the conclusion with the note of certainty?


That is how you are going do better than PixyMisa.


Yrreg

yrreg
23rd November 2008, 12:13 AM
Posted by yrreg

I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

Because?

And why no prohibition against slavery? Why no rules against rape. What about beating one's spouse? Why no rules regarding child abuse? What about forgiveness? Why does the bible say it's ok to kill witches and adulterers? Why did Moses order the slaughter of the Amalekites if god doesn't want people to kill?

What good is the Ten Commandments given that there are so many loopholes in the bible to break those laws?

Can't we do better? Hell, don't we do better? I don't need the Ten Commandments to know that murder is wrong.


Haha, gotcha!

Instead of believing in God you complain against what you think are His misdeeds, and also the misdeeds of His believers.

Okay, very good, since you are into citing the misdeeds of God and the misdeeds of His believers, and you claim to be scientifically grounded...

Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers.


Then you can reach a scientific balance sheet of God's socalled misdeeds and God's good deeds, and also those of His followers from the beginning of man's conscious intelligence and freedom.

That should keep you busy and thus hopefully come to the ultimate certainty that God exists, if you would be open to your reason and intelligence, instead of whining about the supposed misdeeds of God and those of His believers.

That again is an instance of abusing logic to cater to your psychology of self-convenience.


You bring up the socalled misdeeds of God in order to justify your attachment to your conveniences whatever.

What are those conveniences? Self-pity, timidity, not acting the man, lack of self-perseverance in fidelity to the good, noble and righteous and just, resulting in a heart and mind of whining.

Men in the street see immediately in every atheist a crybaby plagued by self-diffidence.


Yrreg

Mojo
23rd November 2008, 02:33 AM
He is a troll.


I've tried to explain this to him before: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1848736#post1848736

Mojo
23rd November 2008, 02:37 AM
Can't we do better? Hell, don't we do better? I don't need the Ten Commandments to know that murder is wrong.


We can demonstrably do at least as well: those "God-given laws" were made up by humans.

Mojo
23rd November 2008, 02:47 AM
You'd be disappointed. There is something similar to "honor among thieves" when it comes to holders of woo beliefs. They may attack each other like crazy when in their own little atheist-forbidding forums, but out in public, they pretty much ignore each other and go on their separate rants. Same is true in CT forums. Two troofers may have theories which directly contradict (like one will say there were no planes while another will say the planes were robot-piloted) yet rarely will one come out here at JREF, and challenge the other. Instead, they join forces to attack the debunkers.

I guess it's like people defend their own family, even if some of them are a little... well... funny.


Same with alt-med types: a couple of hundred years ago when orthodox medicine was mostly useless, quacks spent a lot of time attacking each other as potential competitors (see Roy Porter's book, Quacks: Fakers & Charlatans in Medicine). These days, faced with a mutual enemy that is actually effective, they tend not to criticise each other.

zooterkin
23rd November 2008, 03:14 AM
I've tried to explain this to him before: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1848736#post1848736

It bears repeating here:

A troll is someone who is deliberately contrary and who posts in order to stir up a reaction. Typical behaviour includes, but is not limited to, repeatedly utilising the same logical fallacies, even after they have been pointed out, starting multiple threads making substantially the same points, repeatedly asking the same questions after they have been addressed, unusually formatted posts, a pretence at politeness as a veneer over insults, and evasion of questions asked by others.

Trolls can occasionally be annoying, especially if they enter threads in order to derail them. Once identified, however, they become a joke.


It is also worth noting that you posted that over 2 years ago, and yrreg hasn't learnt a thing since, it would appear.

Mashuna
23rd November 2008, 09:09 AM
That should keep you busy and thus hopefully come to the ultimate certainty that God exists, if you would be open to your reason and intelligence, instead of whining about the supposed misdeeds of God and those of His believers.

That again is an instance of abusing logic to cater to your psychology of self-convenience.


Yrreg, I know you're currently asking other people for a definition of evidence. Maybe you could supply a definition of logic? Because you keep using the word, but not in any context that I recognise.

Elizabeth I
23rd November 2008, 09:24 AM
Okay, very good, since you are into citing the misdeeds of God and the misdeeds of His believers, and you claim to be scientifically grounded...

Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers.

Then you can reach a scientific balance sheet of God's socalled misdeeds and God's good deeds, and also those of His followers from the beginning of man's conscious intelligence and freedom.

That should keep you busy and thus hopefully come to the ultimate certainty that God exists, if you would be open to your reason and intelligence, instead of whining about the supposed misdeeds of God and those of His believers.

Won't work. If one posits the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity, then further posits that the Bible is its inerrant word, one then MUST explain the multiple abuses, abominations and cruelties encouraged, ordered and/or perpetrated by the putative omnipotent omnibenevolence, as described in its own literal, inerrant history.


Men in the street see immediately in every atheist a crybaby plagued by self-diffidence.

Oh, look. Now he's a mind-reader.

Mojo
23rd November 2008, 09:49 AM
You bring up the socalled misdeeds of God in order to justify your attachment to your conveniences whatever.

What are those conveniences? Self-pity, timidity, not acting the man, lack of self-perseverance in fidelity to the good, noble and righteous and just, resulting in a heart and mind of whining.


Far better, I suppose, to hide behind your Big Brother in the sky. God forbid you should have to take any responsibility yourself.

RandFan
23rd November 2008, 11:16 AM
Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers. When you kill children I think that pretty much does it. I don't need to do a balance sheet on BTK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader) to know that he is an evil prick.

You bring up the socalled misdeeds of God in order to justify your attachment to your conveniences whatever.Actually, I asked you some questions. Care to answer them?

Safe-Keeper
23rd November 2008, 11:30 AM
Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers. If God and the Isrealites did half of what they brag about in the Old Testament, I'm not interested in His good deeds, any more than I want to hear of those of Mao's Red Guard, the Red Khmer, or the men involved in Hitler's Holocaust.

yrreg
23rd November 2008, 02:25 PM
It bears repeating here:

Posted by Mojo
A troll is someone who is deliberately contrary and who posts in order to stir up a reaction. Typical behaviour includes, but is not limited to, repeatedly utilising the same logical fallacies, even after they have been pointed out, starting multiple threads making substantially the same points, repeatedly asking the same questions after they have been addressed, unusually formatted posts, a pretence at politeness as a veneer over insults, and evasion of questions asked by others.

Trolls can occasionally be annoying, especially if they enter threads in order to derail them. Once identified, however, they become a joke.


It is also worth noting that you posted that over 2 years ago, and yrreg hasn't learnt a thing since, it would appear.


Haha, gotcha!

Examples of trolls are Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Myers, and all atheists who talk combatively.

In the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, it is prohibited very strictly to accuse or call anyone troll.

Why?

Because even though they be atheists they still have some residue of the capacity for reason and intelligence to realize that calling people troll would be like the pot calling the cauldron black.

But outside of the IIDB, atheist forums elsewhere don't appear to have come to that insight.*

And that goes to show that atheists cannot do self-introspection to come to the reality of their abuse of logic to cater to their psychology of self-conveniences.

See? this instance of calling someone troll when if they have self honesty they would intuit immediately by direct mental vision that they are even more trollish.




Yrreg

*Sad to say, but the IIDB people have this vice of banning their best most productive and brilliant members who strip naked their (atheists) fallacious abuse of reason and intelligence in the cause of atheism, by bringing up bump charges on a wholesale scale like "violating the agreement entered into on registration."

That is why more people with genuine insights are coming to this JREF forum, many leaving IIDB or having been most unfairly banned.

And you know what, talk about intolerance and totalitatorian and inhumanistic mindset of atheists, when they do wield power, with each banning they also add "forever".

Mojo
23rd November 2008, 02:31 PM
*Sad to say, but the IIDB people have this vice of banning their best most productive and brilliant members who strip naked their (atheists) fallacious abuse of reason and intelligence in the cause of atheism...

:dl:

calebprime
23rd November 2008, 02:38 PM
Men in the street see immediately in every atheist a crybaby plagued by self-diffidence.


Yrreg

What's 'self-diffidence'?

I know what diffidence is.

No one speaks this way, except people who are using words that they don't ordinarily use and don't understand.

eta: ah, I see it's another 'd' word like decretorial.

and that it has some currency in inspirational literature, such as this:

SELF-DIFFIDENCE
BY: MADAME JEANNE GUYON

Source of love, and light of day,
Tear me from myself away;
Every view and thought of mine
Cast into the mould of thine;
Teach, O teach this faithless heart
A consistent constant part;
Or, if it must live to grow
More rebellious, break it now!

Is it thus that I requite
Grace and goodness infinite?
Every trace of every boon
Cancell'd and erased so soon!
Can I grieve thee, whom I love;
Thee, in whom I live and move?
If my sorrow touch thee still,
Save me from so great an ill!


etc.

yrreg
23rd November 2008, 03:01 PM
Haha, gotcha!

So, atheists delight in bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible.

If you have any working brain, you should realize that you do believe in the God of the Bible.

Because just as the bad kids at home who do not collaborate with their father to help in the household will bring up the socalled misdeeds of their father toward them, they thereby also profess that they do have a father in charge of them, only they don't want to keep in mind in their frontal brain lobe all the good deeds their father performs as a good provider and caregiver: seeing to food for every meal at home and snacks in the fridge, getting them to doctors, paying for their schooling, giving them money for clothings, pocket cash, arranging for their holidays, and going to the police precinct to bail them out when they get in trouble.

Do you see your abuse of logic, bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible to justify your psychology of self-conveniences, and not bringing to the frontal lobe of your brain the good deeds of God in the Bible?

Of course not, because you have raised up hurdles to your hearts and installed blinders to your mind.

Haha, gotcha!

You are like those do good positive atheists who deny God but want to show people they are ethical in observing all the goodness of Christian Americans.

And ask them where they get all those parameters of goodness they want to continue to keep intact notwithstanding denying God's authorship of all goodness?

They answer with a sheepish confused apologetic grin, chance, and thus undo all their good will to demonstrate before society that they are not bent on immorality for denying God's authorship of all goodness.

Talk about rational consistency and guiltless masturbation but neglecting Occam's razor.

Haha, gotcha!


By the way, have you evidence devotees done your homework to see whether in the otherwise impressive answer by PixyMisa to the question what is evidence, namely:

Evidence is independent, objective, testable data pointing to a conclusion,

have you done your homework to look into the inconvenient aspect of certainty or certitude, whether it is an indispensable part of any answer to the question what is evidence?


You guys can't think anything on your own, but you depend on your trolls: Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, Dennett, Harris, who give you half facts and fact principles and half what else but half truths, and you are so happy thinking you have all the logical assurance to continue to disregard God and thus go about in pursuit of your psychology of self-conveniences.



Yrreg

Foster Zygote
23rd November 2008, 03:05 PM
Isn't it about time for one of the mods to aim the secret sabotage ray at Yrreg's computer?

zooterkin
23rd November 2008, 03:08 PM
Haha, gotcha!
My kids grew out of that when they were about 12.



So, atheists delight in bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible.

If you have any working brain, you should realize that you do believe in the God of the Bible.
Um, no, I don't.

Do you see your abuse of logic, bringing up the socalled misdeeds of God in the Bible to justify your psychology of self-conveniences, and not bringing to the frontal lobe of your brain the good deeds of God in the Bible?

You're the only one alleging this 'psychology of self-conveniences', despite many people telling you otherwise.

Anyway, are you saying those misdeeds are not in the bible?


Talk about rational consistency and guiltless masturbation but neglecting Occam's razor.

Why should one feel guilty about masturbating?

Mojo
23rd November 2008, 03:08 PM
Isn't it about time for one of the mods to aim the secret sabotage ray at Yrreg's computer?


What, instead of at his brain?

yrreg
23rd November 2008, 04:59 PM
If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite.

Unless you have some very esoteric kind of rational consistency or dissonant cognitive consonance.

But worst of all, citing the Bible already willy-nilly makes you Bible believers.

This is what you atheists should do instead to give credence to your being smart kids:

Take up mastery of Biblical higher criticism and lower criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, Biblical exegesis, paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus, ancient Biblical languages and literature, and all kinds of disciplines of scientific validity connected with the Bible.

Until then, whereof you know nothing thereof you must keep quiet.

Stick to science and God as the author of science, okay?


But you should genuinely master true non-selective science, the solid science that is open-ended, not the science of pseudo scientists and peddlers of evolution socalled theory, where they keep harping that evolution is supported by evidence but can't define evidence as to answer the question about certainty.

Also stick to philosophy, try the perennial philosophy which no one can disregard and still live in an inside sane world within himself -- though the world outside be ruled by atheists as during the cold war era when half of mankind were tyrannized by atheists, and during the briefly gory French revolution when the guillotine was overly exploited by atheists to chop of the heads of countless people for being true to God -- and since the French revolution atheists each of them thought themselves to be God, they also ended up chopping each other's heads off, acting as God-almighty, which later also in Soviet Communist Russia happened again with Stalin and colleagues.



Yrreg

Safe-Keeper
23rd November 2008, 05:02 PM
:dl:That pretty much sums up the entire thread, yes:D.
My kids grew out of that when they were about 12.Your kids were not trolls. yrreg is a troll, and thus operates much like a sonar - he sends out 'pings' of idiocy and sees which pings are returned. Whenever a ping is returned, he sends more pings in that direction. Apparently, he's figured out that there's a big fat German u-boat lurking in the direction of 'Haha, gotcha!', and that many more pings and depth charges in this direction are warranted.

The only way to get him to shut up would be for everyone to Run Silent, Run Deep - go to 200 meters, run your engines at low power, be quiet, and ignore him. If the HMS yrreg gets no more return pings, she will give up and go probe some other region of the Internet Seas.

Cavemonster
23rd November 2008, 05:04 PM
paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
I think there are many, many words that do not mean what he thinks they mean.

RandFan
23rd November 2008, 05:18 PM
If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.Sorry, that won't fly.

Thou shalt not kill. --Deuteronomy 5:16

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones. --Numbers 31:17

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite. The Bible is chock full of contradictions and nonsense. It's demonstrably a poor source for morality and truth. Since it is the basis of your belief system it is easy to use it to show that your belief system is incoherent and based on bronze age myth.

PixyMisa
23rd November 2008, 05:24 PM
Haha, gotcha!
Four.

Examples of trolls are Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Myers, and all atheists who talk combatively.
No.

In the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, it is prohibited very strictly to accuse or call anyone troll.
This is not IIDB.

Why?

Because even though they be atheists they still have some residue of the capacity for reason and intelligence to realize that calling people troll would be like the pot calling the cauldron black.
Yep, you are a troll alright.

And that goes to show that atheists cannot do self-introspection to come to the reality of their abuse of logic to cater to their psychology of self-conveniences.
What abuse of logic? Provide detailed examples.

What "psychology of convenience"? Again, be specific.

See? this instance of calling someone troll when if they have self honesty they would intuit immediately by direct mental vision that they are even more trollish.
Right.

Which is why we don't do that.

*Sad to say, but the IIDB people have this vice of banning their best most productive and brilliant members who strip naked their (atheists) fallacious abuse of reason and intelligence in the cause of atheism, by bringing up bump charges on a wholesale scale like "violating the agreement entered into on registration."
You mean, the trolls.

That is why more people with genuine insights are coming to this JREF forum, many leaving IIDB or having been most unfairly banned.
Could you please name one person with "genuine insights" who was "most unfairly banned" from IIDB?

And you know what, talk about intolerance and totalitatorian and inhumanistic mindset of atheists, when they do wield power, with each banning they also add "forever".
It's their forum. You agreed to the rules when you joined.

PixyMisa
23rd November 2008, 05:30 PM
If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.
The Bible is largely irrelevant to the question of God's existence. It is however relevant to questions of God's behaviour, if we posit his existence.

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite.
We don't do that.

Unless you have some very esoteric kind of rational consistency or dissonant cognitive consonance.
No.

But worst of all, citing the Bible already willy-nilly makes you Bible believers.
No.

This is what you atheists should do instead to give credence to your being smart kids:

Take up mastery of Biblical higher criticism and lower criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, Biblical exegesis, paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus, ancient Biblical languages and literature, and all kinds of disciplines of scientific validity connected with the Bible.
We have. Not all of us have studied all of these, of course, but between us we have it very well covered.

There is no reason at all to consider the Bible a factual account of anything much.

Until then, whereof you know nothing thereof you must keep quiet.
What about whereof we know a great deal?

Stick to science and God as the author of science, okay?
We don't believe in God.

But you should genuinely master true non-selective science, the solid science that is open-ended, not the science of pseudo scientists and peddlers of evolution socalled theory, where they keep harping that evolution is supported by evidence but can't define evidence as to answer the question about certainty.
You really, really don't want to go there. Trust me on this.

Also stick to philosophy, try the perennial philosophy which no one can disregard and still live in an inside sane world within himself -- though the world outside be ruled by atheists as during the cold war era when half of mankind were tyrannized by atheists, and during the briefly gory French revolution when the guillotine was overly exploited by atheists to chop of the heads of countless people for being true to God -- and since the French revolution atheists each of them thought themselves to be God, they also ended up chopping each other's heads off, acting as God-almighty, which later also in Soviet Communist Russia happened again with Stalin and colleagues.
No.

Safe-Keeper
23rd November 2008, 05:30 PM
And you know what, talk about intolerance and totalitatorian and inhumanistic mindset of atheists, when they do wield power, with each banning they also add "forever".The JREF forums ban you only if you break the rules. Godtube will ban you, with the word "forever", just for speaking your mind.

Dancing David
23rd November 2008, 07:00 PM
If you guys want to deny God's existence, don't bring in the Bible.

Why? Because you cannot cite the Bible to disprove something and disregard the Bible when it more certainly proves the opposite.

Unless you have some very esoteric kind of rational consistency or dissonant cognitive consonance.

But worst of all, citing the Bible already willy-nilly makes you Bible believers.

This is what you atheists should do instead to give credence to your being smart kids:

Take up mastery of Biblical higher criticism and lower criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, Biblical exegesis, paleontology of the Jews from Abraham to Jesus, ancient Biblical languages and literature, and all kinds of disciplines of scientific validity connected with the Bible.

Until then, whereof you know nothing thereof you must keep quiet.

So, do you follow AL or YHVH, which is god and which is just a fraction of god? Do you know the difference?

Stick to science and God as the author of science, okay?


But you should genuinely master true non-selective science, the solid science that is open-ended, not the science of pseudo scientists and peddlers of evolution socalled theory, where they keep harping that evolution is supported by evidence but can't define evidence as to answer the question about certainty.

Also stick to philosophy, try the perennial philosophy which no one can disregard and still live in an inside sane world within himself -- though the world outside be ruled by atheists as during the cold war era when half of mankind were tyrannized by atheists, and during the briefly gory French revolution when the guillotine was overly exploited by atheists to chop of the heads of countless people for being true to God -- and since the French revolution atheists each of them thought themselves to be God, they also ended up chopping each other's heads off, acting as God-almighty, which later also in Soviet Communist Russia happened again with Stalin and colleagues.



Yrreg

Yrreg, what happened to you?

The tone of your posts has changed considerably, is everything okay in your life?

I ask because your tone has changed a great deal, your seem to have replaced your humor with zealotry.

Are doing allright man?

I hope so.

Best wishes to you and yours.

sleepy_lioness
24th November 2008, 01:48 AM
I'm an ex-Christian atheist. I was brought up in Sunday School, daughter of a Baptist Minister, had a 'believer's baptism' at age 14, thought it was my primary purpose in life to convert all my schoolmates and teachers to Christianity, etc.

Then when I was 17 I woke up one morning an atheist. Up til then I'd always had a nice fuzzy feeling that God existed and listened to me. One morning I woke up and he'd gone. No matter how hard I tried, I simply couldn't believe. Not that I didn't want to - I couldn't. This was very hard for me and I was very distressed for quite a long while. But eventually I came to see that God didn't exist and that was OK.

Now I lead a rather boring and moral life - trust me, you'd find nothing to object to in my behaviour, and I have no weird sexual kinks or anything like that - and I'm still an atheist, out of necessity. I would be lying if I said I believed in God, just as I would be lying if I said I didn't believe in, say, the existence of my best friend Kerstin. No matter how hard I might try I can't believe either that God exists, or that Kerstin doesn't.

DOC
24th November 2008, 06:21 AM
Atheism is a lack of belief in god. It doesn't necessarily have any more to do with opposition to the 10 commandments than it does with opposition to the Kumulipo.

Why are atheists taking out ads on buses to advertise their lack of belief? That sounds more than a simple passive lack of belief in God.

quixotecoyote
24th November 2008, 06:27 AM
Why are atheists taking out ads on buses to advertise their lack of belief? That sounds more than a simple passive lack of belief in God.

Quite right. You've almost discovered the difference between passivity as a descriptor of an argument and passivity as a descriptor of a person.

calebprime
24th November 2008, 07:33 AM
...

Now I lead a rather boring and moral life - trust me, you'd find nothing to object to in my behaviour, and I have no weird sexual kinks or anything like that ...

This sounds like a cry for help.

Frozenwolf150
24th November 2008, 09:25 AM
If God and the Isrealites did half of what they brag about in the Old Testament, I'm not interested in His good deeds, any more than I want to hear of those of Mao's Red Guard, the Red Khmer, or the men involved in Hitler's Holocaust.

The interesting thing about that is that very few of the atrocities or executions described in the Bible actually happened. For example, take the rapacious looting destruction of the Canaanites. Historical and archaeological evidence shows that the Canaanites never fell to military conquest, rather the civilization simply sputtered out and died. The Israelites were an offshoot of the original Canaanite tribe that crawled away from the collapse. Because they wanted to separate themselves from their Canaanite roots as much as possible in order to distinguish themselves as an independent people, the Israelites did the only logical thing possible. They invented a story about destroying the Canaanites.

Similarly, the brutal executions described in the Bible very rarely happened. The laws of Deuteronomy were written by the priesthood in a time following successive conquests by the Assyrians and then the Babylonians, which was when the Israelites were taken in chains as slaves to Babylon. They had no state or borders of their own, let alone political power, therefore it's hardly conceivable that they could have executed anyone the way they frequently warned would happen. Additionally, the courts required an overwhelming amount of evidence for a person's guilt, including at least two eyewitnesses, before he was put to death.

A people who have been brutalized, conquered, and enslaved throughout much of their history were likely not the ones inflicting atrocities on other tribes. Why did they talk about it so often then? Put yourself in their shoes. They would have been bitter and resentful towards their captives, but with no way of taking action, the most they could do was express their vengeful sentiments in writing. The Israelites sure talked tough, but they rarely acted it.

Safe-Keeper
24th November 2008, 10:10 AM
The interesting thing about that is that very few of the atrocities or executions described in the Bible actually happened.I actually suspected as much. Thanks for elaborating.

Hokulele
24th November 2008, 10:41 AM
Why are atheists taking out ads on buses to advertise their lack of belief?


Why don't you ask those who did so?

yrreg
24th November 2008, 02:03 PM
[...]

Yrreg, what happened to you?

The tone of your posts has changed considerably, is everything okay in your life?

I ask because your tone has changed a great deal, your seem to have replaced your humor with zealotry.

Are doing allright man?

I hope so.

Best wishes to you and yours.



Just trying to appear churlish, for drama effect.

You know, David, all conscious life is a script, but for being a script it is no less sincere; that is what conscious life is all about, ants and monkeys don't play any conscious script.

If you get the impression that I am acting with zealotry, please disabuse yourself because I have always kept to polite language, abstaining from cuss words.


Thanks for the reminder just the same, one can't be too careful so as not to lapse into incivility owing to enthusiasm, in this academic exercise of intellectual hobby in indulging in one's curiosity, in regard to the mentality and psychology of atheists as also before of Buddhist converts like yourself.



Yrreg

yrreg
24th November 2008, 02:23 PM
About answering the question What is evidence, it appears that people here don't seem to have the habit in describing anything or defining anything at all, to first tell the listeners what it is, then its features, then how it is useful to man.


PixyMisa tells readers that evidence is data, notice that word data which answers the question what, then (s)he continues to give the features of that data, namely, independent, objective, testable, lastly, (s)he informs people what it is useful for to man, to wit: pointing to a conclusion.

A very pithy relevant definition, but still not good enough for men in the street with a critical attitude.

I will put up a thread on what is evidence, in the meantime think about whether evidence should also include the note of certainty.



Yrreg

AWPrime
24th November 2008, 02:28 PM
Impolite language isn't limited to abstaining from cuss words.

godless dave
24th November 2008, 03:40 PM
Haha, gotcha!

Instead of believing in God you complain against what you think are His misdeeds, and also the misdeeds of His believers.

Okay, very good, since you are into citing the misdeeds of God and the misdeeds of His believers, and you claim to be scientifically grounded...

Suppose now you do a complete enumeration of God's good deeds and also the good deeds of His believers.


Then you can reach a scientific balance sheet of God's socalled misdeeds and God's good deeds, and also those of His followers from the beginning of man's conscious intelligence and freedom.

Why? None of that would constitute evidence for your God's existence. It would, however, tell us something about the people that wrote the Bible.

godless dave
24th November 2008, 03:42 PM
Why are atheists taking out ads on buses to advertise their lack of belief? That sounds more than a simple passive lack of belief in God.

You are confusing an action with a lack of belief. Some atheists want other people to know it's OK to be an atheist. This is a desire, not a belief.

Tricky
24th November 2008, 04:30 PM
The JREF forums ban you only if you break the rules. Godtube will ban you, with the word "forever", just for speaking your mind.
That's sort of a technicality. Both forums will ban you for breaking the rules. On Godtube, making a statement critical of religion is against the rules. They would probably not ban you for spamming though, if you posted every word of the bible, verse by verse, as JREF would (after numerous warnings). But of course, on JREF, nobody is banned for their opinions.

Dancing David
25th November 2008, 05:42 AM
Just trying to appear churlish, for drama effect.

You know, David, all conscious life is a script, but for being a script it is no less sincere; that is what conscious life is all about, ants and monkeys don't play any conscious script.

If you get the impression that I am acting with zealotry, please disabuse yourself because I have always kept to polite language, abstaining from cuss words.


Thanks for the reminder just the same, one can't be too careful so as not to lapse into incivility owing to enthusiasm, in this academic exercise of intellectual hobby in indulging in one's curiosity, in regard to the mentality and psychology of atheists as also before of Buddhist converts like yourself.



Yrreg

I was just curious as you writing style and tone had changed significantly.

I am glad you are well.

I would not use the word convert, but whatever.

Dancing David
25th November 2008, 05:45 AM
I will put up a thread on what is evidence, in the meantime think about whether evidence should also include the note of certainty.



Yrreg


No, certainty has no place in science or philosophy. Evidence is what can be observed and then investigated.