Observations on atheists

[Riddick]

Here are some samplings by some Sages at ChristianForums.com on atheists.

Would you like butter on your popcorn? Settle in and enjoy!

Metacrock, age 48
why are you so resistant to learning? You guys constantly just show your ignorance daily and when we try to correct even factual errors where you get christian beliefs wrong you never listen, never change the erroneous opinions. Most disturbing of all somehow atheists have managed to convence themselves that they are some sort of intellectual superiors, when most of them know spit about art, litterature, philosophy, or life. All they know about is science, and most of the time they screw that up.

radorth, age 55
I saw empirical, visible evidence of God, therefore your "empirical evidence" against his existence a bunch of BS atheists take on pure faith. What atheists are missing is a grasp of their own bias and will not to believe. They can be merely cynical, thoughtless, materialists and call themselves "objective." Most are very one-dimensional in their thinking, I believe in order to maintain control because of some bad childhood experiences. (Peck talks about "atheists" getting therapy and walking out believing in God, or at least being agnostic) They have convinced themselves they are "free thinkers" when actually they refuse to think about any possibility which would shake their faith.

And generally the younger they are the more they think they know, and can explain, and the worse off they are. (Kind of like the rest of humanity).

Thank you for your contribution, radorth. And here, a younger contributor:
Theresa, age 26
LOL, yeah we tend to disagree on what is reasonable or not. Atheists are always more reasonable no matter how arrogant, biased or insulting they are of course.
andrew dice clay "OOOOOOOOOHHH!!!"

[scribble]

You still think like a thirteen-year-old.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by scribble
You still think like a thirteen-year-old.
that's all that's required to dispense of you, no need to overkill

[evildave]

evildave, age 37
Though randomly generated sock-puppet quotations of opinions are not evidence, I agree that the atheistic position that there is no cookie monster is as absurd as the theistic position that there is, because you can't prove a negative, especially based on no supportable evidence, either way.

My opinion is that the 'god' and 'afterlife' questions do not matter any more than whether a 'Star Destroyer' could blow up the 'Starship Enterprise'.



cookie monster, age 34
Cookie!!!



Kirsten Dunst, age 22
Oh, evildave, you're so cute!

[Radrook]

It is easy to seem to appear right when one arbitrarily chooses one's own rules concerning logic and ignores the accepted ones.

This is akin to having a discussion with a person who changes issues whenever he finds it convenient.

Oliver North is an expert at it and got away with it to boot.

One variation is called snowing.

That's why I find debates a waste of time.

[Iacchus]

Theresa, age 26
LOL, yeah we tend to disagree on what is reasonable or not. Atheists are always more reasonable no matter how arrogant, biased or insulting they are of course.Yes, this definitely bears repeating. ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, this definitely bears repeating. ;)

I'll give you bias, but being arrogant or insulting make no odds to reason.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Riddick
Here are some samplings by some Sages at ChristianForums.com on atheists.

*Stuff that doesn't get copied in a 'quote' reply*

andrew dice clay "OOOOOOOOOHHH!!!"

:rub:

Am I supposed to be upset by all that?

[wittgenst3in]

Geez, the argument from authority has gone downhill in the last few years. Once when people wanted to make a point they would quote philosophers, writers, artists, scientists, hell even rock stars. :D

Now it's a couple of guys on a bulletin board you've never even heard of?

[Navigator]

"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man."

Perhaps when the deep mystery of the nature of Humanity is discovered - God will be found therein...of course, this will be some time into the future, as can be evidenced, humanity is still infantile.

What came first (the argument goes) the chook or the egg?

And the answer is.....?

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Navigator
"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man."

Perhaps when the deep mystery of the nature of Humanity is discovered - God will be found therein...of course, this will be some time into the future, as can be evidenced, humanity is still infantile.

What came first (the argument goes) the chook or the egg?

And the answer is.....?

A tree in a golden forrest.

[Lord Emsworth]

Theresa, age 26
LOL, yeah we tend to disagree on what is reasonable or not. Atheists are always more reasonable no matter how arrogant, biased or insulting they are of course.




Sounds pretty arrogant, biased and insulting to me. Hmmm, ... Incidently just as arrogant, biased and insulting as the other two quotes that you, Riddick, supplied. A few excerpts:


• "why are you so resistant to learning?" (Metacrock, age 48)

Am I correct in assuming that this arrogant statement is directed at an Atheist?

• "Most disturbing of all somehow atheists have managed to convence themselves that they are some sort of intellectual superiors, when most of them know spit about art, litterature, philosophy, or life." (Metacrock, age 48)

Most of them?

• "They [Atheists] can be merely cynical, thoughtless, materialists and call themselves "objective." Most are very one-dimensional in their thinking, I believe in order to maintain control because of some bad childhood experiences." (radorth, age 55)

One dimensional? Unlike the speaker of course.

• "(Peck talks about "atheists" getting therapy and walking out believing in God, or at least being agnostic)" (radorth, age 55)

Therapy? Are we somehow defective, or what?



Oh, Riddick. You are a very funny person indeed, and your track record on this forum here tells me that you simply cannot be sarcastic with this statement for it yould go against your bias:

"Here are some samplings by some Sages at ChristianForums.com on atheists." (Riddick)

:nope:

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Riddick
Here are some samplings by some Sages at ChristianForums.com on atheists.

Would you like butter on your popcorn? Settle in and enjoy!

Thank you for your contribution, radorth. And here, a younger contributor:

andrew dice clay "OOOOOOOOOHHH!!!"

LOL. Still no evidence for your ridiculous beliefs then I see Riddick? :D

[rebecca]

Before I read the responses, I thought Riddick was making a case for atheists. :eek:

[DangerousBeliefs]

Typical Radick (Ridrook?).

He has no case for there being a God (well, besides the usual ID fodder)... so he prefers Straw Man a light Ad Hominem sauce.

[dmarker]

Riddick, do you have evidence that these are real people?

If they are, do they know that they are being quoted in this forum?

Maybe you should invite them to this forum to defend themselves. Being quoted in another forum without a chance to defend oneself is a bit unfair, don't you think?

[Riddick]

Originally posted by dmarker
Riddick, do you have evidence that these are real people?

If they are, do they know that they are being quoted in this forum?

Maybe you should invite them to this forum to defend themselves. Being quoted in another forum without a chance to defend oneself is a bit unfair, don't you think?
I told you where you can find them, christianforums.com, post anywhere in general apologetics and maybe you will get their attention. I'll invite them to jref.

[Riddick]

edit, double post

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Riddick

I told you where you can find them, christianforums.com, post anywhere in general apologetics and maybe you will get their attention. I'll invite them to jref.

How do we know they are not your sock puppets?

I don't want to post in christianforums.com for I respect their space. And it seems as if you want us to invade their space, Riddick, why?

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by dmarker


How do we know they are not your sock puppets?



Does it really matter?

I am content to believe in a world of 5 (or 6?)billion people that there are 2 christians who don't like atheists and 1 atheist who makes a hideosly ironic statement like the one cited.

Whether the opinions cited above are at all relevant is another matter entirely. It is usual when posting comments made on other boards to say things about them, ask questions, try to find out things about the subject. Riddick did none of these things here, so I am unsure what he wants out of the thread he started.

I can't say that a few lines from 3 people I've never heard of are going to cause me to loose any sleep.


P.s. Radrock, I am amazed how much time you apparently spend frequenting these forums to tell people that debating is a waste of your time.

[The GM]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in


P.s. Radrock, I am amazed how much time you apparently spend frequenting these forums to tell people that debating is a waste of your time.

Is Riddick and Radrook the same guy? Would that make him Raddick, or Ridrook or even Riddadidrok?
Sometimes I wonder. They seem alike in attitude on occassion. :|
*shrugs*

[Zep]

I've just stopped by to say...what a totally inane OP. A bunch of nobodies say nothing and go nowhere with it. And Riddick thinks he's seen the centre of the universe?? I'm sure all the psychologists nearby are salivating now...

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Navigator
"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man."

Perhaps when the deep mystery of the nature of Humanity is discovered - God will be found therein...of course, this will be some time into the future, as can be evidenced, humanity is still infantile.



Perhaps. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

[Kopji]

Metacrock, age 48
why are you so resistant to learning? You guys constantly just show your ignorance daily and when we try to correct even factual errors where you get christian beliefs wrong


And this begs the question of what is the definition of a Christian? And while we are at it, could we discuss ONE subject in the Bible where there is only ONE interpretation or opinion? For every two Christians there are eight opinions. Chances are, it is impossible to get Christian beliefs “wrong” because someone, somewhere, in some tiny obscure sect will have a different view.


radorth, age 55
I saw empirical, visible evidence of God, therefore your "empirical evidence" against his existence a bunch of BS atheists take on pure faith.

Excellent examples of this are people whose personal experience of God is so strong they gladly become martyrs.


Theresa, age 26
LOL, yeah we tend to disagree on what is reasonable or not. Atheists are always more reasonable no matter how arrogant, biased or insulting they are of course.

Whoa, a Christian with a sarcastic sense of humor. Hey, still young and plenty of time to become an atheist!

On Riddick… I liked ‘Pitch Black’ better than ‘Chronicles of Riddick’. I do like Vin Diesel as an action hero though so the series shows promise.

[Doctor X]

A greater argument in favor of atheism I have not seen in quite some time.

Congratulations!

--J.D.

[Batman Jr.]

When you're picking out specific religions and their gods, where discrepancies in internal logic always seem to abound, it is not so unreasonable to say that, oh, a "Christian" god or an "Islamic" god, for example, do not exist. Despite heeding that, I must still remain an agnostic as there may be some kind of god that does not affiliate itself with any number of dogmas or only adheres to one or more selectively.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Despite heeding that, I must still remain an agnostic as there may be some kind of god that does not affiliate itself with any number of dogmas or only adheres to one or more selectively.

I understand what you are saying Bjr, but there are many objects that may exist (such as a three headed monkey that shoots fire.) that you probably wouldn't describe yourself as being agnostic about the existence of.

If you had a child, and in the middle of the night they came screaming and said "Daddy, I'm worried about three headed fire-breathing monkeys" I'd be willing to bet you'd tell them that they don't exist, not say that we have no evidence, but no-one has searched all over the planet, and they might still be out there.

Also, in scientific terms the statement "there are no three-headed monkeys" is falsifiable, by one reliable observation of such a monkey.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
I understand what you are saying Bjr, but there are many objects that may exist (such as a three headed monkey that shoots fire.) that you probably wouldn't describe yourself as being agnostic about the existence of.

If you had a child, and in the middle of the night they came screaming and said "Daddy, I'm worried about three headed fire-breathing monkeys" I'd be willing to bet you'd tell them that they don't exist, not say that we have no evidence, but no-one has searched all over the planet, and they might still be out there.

Also, in scientific terms the statement "there are no three-headed monkeys" is falsifiable, by one reliable observation of such a monkey.
The example you present with the monkey describes something which is detectable. Given that, the fact we've never seen one greatly increases its chances of non-existence. When we talk about things simply beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, we're dealing with an entirely different situation.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

The example you present with the monkey describes something which is detectable. Given that, the fact we've never seen one greatly increases its chances of non-existence. When we talk about things simply beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, we're dealing with an entirely different situation.

Say for example I was to replace it with Carl Sagan's invisible (and untouchable) dragon. This then becomes beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, but you still don't see people describing themselves as agnostic about invisible dragons.

If you choose to be agnostic that's fine, but I'm just pointing out that there is no obligation that you must be agnostic as you said earlier.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in


Say for example I was to replace it with Carl Sagan's invisible (and untouchable) dragon. This then becomes beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, but you still don't see people describing themselves as agnostic about invisible dragons.

If you choose to be agnostic that's fine, but I'm just pointing out that there is no obligation that you must be agnostic as you said earlier.
Though I might sound crazy for saying it, I'm agnostic about invisible dragons as well.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

Though I might sound crazy for saying it, I'm agnostic about invisible dragons as well.

Okay, I respect that for being consitent.

I don't think that it is necessary to have agnosticism as the only option though. Most people have to take a somewhat practical approach to philosophy, otherwise we'd all be solipsisits. :)

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
Okay, I respect that for being consitent.

I don't think that it is necessary to have agnosticism as the only option though. Most people have to take a somewhat practical approach to philosophy, otherwise we'd all be solipsisits. :)
I don't agonize over any of this stuff if that's what you mean.

[Radrook]

The word "detectable" means one thing in reference to God but an entirely different thing in reference to abiogenesis. A very convenient modus operandi based on the fallacy of equivocation.

Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course.

But that would peal away the necessary camouflage veneer and make the equivocating pro-atheist tactic untenable by making it too obvious.


Absolutely amazing!

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Radrook
The word "detectable" means one thing in reference to God but an entirely different thing in reference to abiogenesis. A very convenient modus operandi based on the fallacy of equivocation.

Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course.

But that would peal away the necessary camouflage veneer and make the equivocating pro-atheist tactic untenable by making it too obvious.


Absolutely amazing!

The word 'detectable' means one thing in reference to an engineer talking about a signal transmitted by a cell phone, and something entirely different in relation to an archeologist talking about the Maya civilisation.
"Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course."
Well, yes, but most people would understand the difference, without straining the language.
When a Mormon friend tells me that Jesus is still in my heart, I don't feel a need to rush to a cardiologist.

It's not an 'Atheist tactic', It's called the 'English language'

Did you see the article on the Sun, in the latest National Geographic - Absolutely amazing!

That my Mormon friends still think that I could be brought back into the church - Absolutely amazing!

P

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins


The word 'detectable' means one thing in reference to an engineer talking about a signal transmitted by a cell phone, and something entirely different in relation to an archeologist talking about the Maya civilization.
"Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course."
Well, yes, but most people would understand the difference, without straining the language.
When a Mormon friend tells me that Jesus is still in my heart, I don't feel a need to rush to a cardiologist.

It's not an 'Atheist tactic', It's called the 'English language'

Did you see the article on the Sun, in the latest National Geographic - Absolutely amazing!

That my Mormon friends still think that I could be brought back into the church - Absolutely amazing!

P

Perhaps I should have explained what equivocation is.

I think you might have misunderstood me.

I am aware that English or any other language can and is employed to deceive, misrepresent, beg the question, and so on. Actually, I assume the usage of language for that particular purpose as a given when speaking with atheists.

The point is that words that should remain stable throughout a discussion are suddenly, and conveniently employed in an entirely different sense.

It should be obvious that I was not referring to words that are mutually recognized initially as ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT. if they had been recognized that way at the outset then there would not be any basis for protest of equivocation.

So I was referring to words which are genuinely and LEGITIMATELY and intially accepted as applicable to both arguments UNTIL the moment when atheists feel it convenient to change their meaning slightly so as to exclude their application to what they had previously been quite willing to acknowledge was legitimate application and to which they will later acknowledge is a legitimate application once they have extricated themselves from an untenable situatron.

Please try not to attribute arguments to me which are not mine.

Thanx

[Z]

Please... elaborate. Whereupon has this misuse of language occured? I'd be fascinated to learn this one.

[Doctor X]

Perhaps I should have explained what equivocation is.

His posts rather exemplify the phenomenon.

--J.D.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Radrook

I am aware that English or any other language can and is employed to deceive, misrepresent, beg the question, and so on. Actually, I assume the usage of language for that particular purpose as a given when speaking with atheists.
Well, ok, English can be misconstrued, without any particular intent to deceive or misrepresent. Thats one reason why smilies are so useful :p
You obviously assume the worst when you talk to atheists, so it's hardly surprising that meanings get mixed up.


The point is that words that should remain stable throughout a discussion are suddenly, and conveniently employed in an entirely different sense.

Perhaps the change in meaning is in your interpretation given your stated bias when speaking with atheists.
P

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

Well, ok, English can be misconstrued, without any particular intent to deceive or misrepresent. Thats one reason why smilies are so useful :p
You obviously assume the worst when you talk to atheists, so it's hardly surprising that meanings get mixed up.


I obviously assume that those are the tactics they will employ because my experiences involving hundreds of debates and conversations with atheists, unfortunately, have been those in which those same tactics have been repeatedly employed.

Since I am not brain-dead and am susceptible to reaching conclusions based on inductive observation, I have concluded that the next dialogue with an atheist would likely be one in which these same tactics would be employed.

Up to now my predictions have not disappointed me.



Perhaps the change in meaning is in your interpretation given your stated bias when speaking with atheists.


I have more than sufficient command of the English language to know when a person is legitimately using language or illegitimately using language. Otherwise I would have never been asked to tutor in English at the college level nor ace all my English composition courses. So your assumption that I lack the sufficient discriminatory perception to tell the difference doesn't really hold much water.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Radrook
I have more than sufficient command of the English language to know when a person is legitimately using language or illegitimately using language. Otherwise I would have never been asked to tutor in English at the college level nor ace all my English composition courses. So your assumption that I lack the sufficient discriminatory perception to tell the difference doesn't really hold much water.

This isn't English though, this is Philosophy.

In Philosophy, we do our best to respect a convention referred to as the Principle of Charity. This is the convention that we interpret other people's arguments and claims in the most charitable manner possible. The flip side of the principle is that when you critique someone's position, you engage with the best possible version of their thesis.

This is because it's very easy and very pointless to interpret someone in such a way that they don't make sense, and then beat up the resulting straw man.

That is all you have done. You've found (or rather, created) a nit to pick and then taken the rest of the day off while you still have a lot of work to do.

It's also worth pointing out that yes, some atheists also ace undergrad courses or even tutor them. So appealing to your own claimed authority on the linguistic abuses of atheists as a group is not an approach that will get you far.

[c0rbin]

Name calling and all is fun, as is flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling(?).

But here is where it is :

If YOU claim there is a god, much less a J-C God, the burden of proof is on YOU.

And all the opinions of of all the forums on this whole world-wide web don't change that one little bit.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by rebecca
Before I read the responses, I thought Riddick was making a case for atheists. :eek: Yeah, I thought it was WinAce's FStDT again.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Name calling and all is fun, as is flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling(?).

But here is where it is :

If YOU claim there is a god, much less a J-C God, the burden of proof is on YOU.

And all the opinions of of all the forums on this whole world-wide web don't change that one little bit.
Accusing all of the above could also qualify as flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling, would it not?

Yes, I'm well aware that the atheist "rubber stamp" places the burden on me. I'm surprised you don't want to prove it for yourself, being the discovering type that you are. I'm not gullible enough to just blindly assume God doesn't exist.

Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Riddick

Accusing all of the above could also qualify as flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling, would it not?

Yes, I'm well aware that the atheist "rubber stamp" places the burden on me. I'm surprised you don't want to prove it for yourself, being the discovering type that you are. I'm not gullible enough to just blindly assume God doesn't exist.

Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

What is the two-thousand year old proof? If it's Christ, are we absolutely sure he existed and in the manner described in the gospels? (e.g. performing of miracles, resurrection, healing, etc.)

The law of gravity will be able to be tested for the next two-thousand years, thusly proof of it is always being given.

In establishing a way to prove the existence of God, the first thing we need to ask is "What would consititute proof of God?" and how would we test for it?

[RabbiSatan]

Oh *yawn*, Riddick returns...still no evidence of that global flood eh?

Yes, I'm well aware that the atheist "rubber stamp" places the burden on me. I'm surprised you don't want to prove it for yourself, being the discovering type that you are. I'm not gullible enough to just blindly assume God doesn't exist.

You can't prove a negative unless the positive is already proven - in which case, you wouldn't have to prove the negative to begin with.

I'm surprised you still haven't learned that yet. Since that might be a bit too complicated for you, let me shorten it:

You can't prove a negative.

Thus, the onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

Ah, ignorance is bliss :rolleyes:

Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

I think a better question would be: Did the "proof" actually occur to begin with and wasn't written later down the road?

[Riddick]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
Oh *yawn*, Riddick returns...still no evidence of that global flood eh?

You can't prove a negative unless the positive is already proven - in which case, you wouldn't have to prove the negative to begin with.

I'm surprised you still haven't learned that yet. Since that might be a bit too complicated for you, let me shorten it:

You can't prove a negative.

Thus, the onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

Ah, ignorance is bliss :rolleyes:

I think a better question would be: Did the "proof" actually occur to begin with and wasn't written later down the road?
The Grand Canyon appears to be caused by water. 16 miles wide, 1 mile deep. So we can go that direction if you want. I'll save you the time: you'll quote geologists (on the internet, no less ;)) who say the GC was caused by a trickle of water. Fine. We disagree.

If I write on 7/7/04 that the Titanic sank in something like 1911, would it still be true that the Titanic sank? So you see, we actually can have a truth after the fact. You, in all your luminescent brilliance, should have figured that out.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Riddick
If I write on 7/7/04 that the Titanic sank in something like 1911, would it still be true that the Titanic sank? So you see, we actually can have a truth after the fact. You, in all your luminescent brilliance, should have figured that out.

I am quite very well aware of that - we know that the Titanic sank because of convergence of evidence, and because the event was quite covered and extensively recorded. We know that it occured.

Whereas with Jesus? Oh, we have just this Book of dubious origin, that, among other things, has been translated and copied many, many times, has more holes than Swiss Cheese, claims of global floods, miracles, demons, prophesies, the end of the world, and so much more. And quite a bit of it being unverifiable - which, for me, I have a hard time accepting the existance of Jesus as proof if there weren't more evidence.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by c0rbin
[B]Name calling and all is fun, as is flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling(?).

Unfortunately, there are administrators and moderators out there who consider temporary banning and permanent banning equally as entertaining. LOL

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Riddick
Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it? That's the thing about science... Proofs are supposed to be verifiable.

If I say A squared plus B squared equals C squared in a right-triangle you or anyone else, even 2000 years later, can verify it.

In 2000 years someone could just as easily test gravity.

[Kopji]

for the sake of the children
The Titanic sank on April 15, 1912. A famous book was written about it called 'A Night to Remember' . :dio:

The thing about gravity, humorously recalled in Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith", is that we don't need to meet every Sunday to affirm the truth of gravity by singing DOWN DOWN DOWN. (paraphrased)

Reason imposes strict limits on what can be true... faith has no such limits and is immune to any evidence that might refute it.
(ibid pg 102-103)

[wittgenst3in]

Comparisons with gravity aside, the types of proof people talk about WRT the bible are historical. These are not replicatable on demand, so we are dealing with a fundamentally different beast. In historical proofs we often have to choose from scanty evidence and conflicting stories.

It's often said that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Ceasar. This may be the case. Most people will accept Julius as having existed.

If however Julius was claimed to have been able to breath fire, bearing in mind that no-one today can breath fire and it does not seem possible with what we know of biology, they would probably ask for more proof than currently exists.

Most people would accept Julius because in a practical sense it dosent' matter if he existed or not, the only difference would be in relation to other historical figures. If however he was supposed to be able to breath fire people would have to come to one of these conclusions:

1) Someone was able to breath fire, hence our understanding of biology must be very wrong, because we cannot account for this. Also, the laws of thermodynamics are possibly suspect, as the heat transfer should have scalded his throat. Also, people today definetly cannot breathe fire, so we have no way of knowing how this was accomplished.

2) Someone in history was telling porkies.

Since we are reluctant to throw away much of our understanding of how the laws of physics works on the unverifiable evidence of a few manuscripts, most people would choose 2.

[thaiboxerken]

Atheists simply don't believe in a god or gods. This encompasses all kinds of people, from invalids to super geniuses. These observations by christians are just really generalizations and insults.

It's often said that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Ceasar.

I doubt that this is really the case. The historical evidence for a jesus christ is flimsy at best.

[Ossai]

Riddick
About the flood.

Read Dr. Marty Leipzig looks at the mathematics of 'Noah's Flood.' (http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm) for a brief look at the water side of things.

Still not convinced then do the math yourself. While you’re at it, do the math for the ark as well. Determine how much volume was available within the ark and what the buoyancy would have been loaded and unloaded. Then throw the animals on as well as the necessary supplies, not only for the animals and Noah’s family during the 40 days but for the years following.

Ossai

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Atheists simply don't believe in a god or gods. This encompasses all kinds of people, from invalids to super geniuses. These observations by christians are just really generalizations and insults.However, I couldn't help but notice you're throwing the word belief around here. Do you say this merely because this is what you wish to believe or, do you have any actual proof? Wishful thinking is not the means of accomplishing anything by the way. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

A lack of belief is not a belief in itself, stupid. Doubters need no evidence to support their lack of belief. The onus is upon the believers to give evidence to support their beliefs. I understand that wishful thinking doesn't accomplish anything, but it's you retarded believers that think prayers work.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, I couldn't help but notice you're throwing the word belief around here. Do you say this merely because this is what you wish to believe or, do you have any actual proof? Wishful thinking is not the means of accomplishing anything by the way. ;)

You're taking the word belief out of context - if you notice to the left of the word, he says "don't". Meaning that we "don't believe" In Jehova or Thor, simply because there is no evidence. Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it, and more often than not, leads to the opposite conclusion that Gods do exist.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Atheists simply don't believe in a god or gods. This encompasses all kinds of people, from invalids to super geniuses. These observations by christians are just really generalizations and insults.And by the way, if you don't believe in god, you still can't escape the fact that you have to believe in something, or else how would you function? For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further. Why? Because you haven't established a basis by which to accept anything. And why should I bother?

So, before we continue this little game of semantics further, you might want to bear this in mind. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And by the way, if you don't believe in god, you still can't escape the fact that you have to believe in something, or else how would you function?

Huh? We function quite fine, thank you very much.

You are insinuating that to be able to function - one must have a belief - that is, to be frank, b*llsh*t.

For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further. Why? Because you haven't established a basis by which to accept anything. And why should I bother?

Belief is defined as believing in something with out evidence. Belief doesn't come into us considering whether or not we exist - we are right here - Sum Ergo Cogito - That is evidence that we exist.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further.

I've been silent about my beliefs for too long. I was ashamed that my friends wouldn't agree with me, ohh the humanity. But now it's time to set the record straight:

I believe I exist

There. I've said it. Boy that took guts. Tune in next week when I admit I have ten toes. ;)


Why? Because you haven't established a basis by which to accept anything. And why should I bother?


Logically, when it comes to accepting my own existence, who is it doing the accepting? It can only be me.

Hence I can't question my own existence, because there would be no-one to do the questioning.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You're taking the word belief out of context - if you notice to the left of the word, he says "don't". Meaning that we "don't believe" In Jehova or Thor, simply because there is no evidence. Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it, and more often than not, leads to the opposite conclusion that Gods do exist.Originally posted by RabbiSatan

A lack of belief is not a belief in itself, stupid. Doubters need no evidence to support their lack of belief. The onus is upon the believers to give evidence to support their beliefs. I understand that wishful thinking doesn't accomplish anything, but it's you retarded believers that think prayers work. Actually I couldn't help but think it was a matter of your belief(s), especially when you get all emotional about it and start slinging the ad hominems around. You know, like accusing people of being delusional or, that they're full of crap and stuff like that? :p

[RabbiSatan]

You misascribed and misquoted thaiboxerken's and my posts with the wrong authors - you might want to edit that.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually I couldn't help but think it was a matter of your belief(s),

I'll state and repeat again - Atheism is non-belief. As in we do not believe.

especially when you get all emotional about it and start slinging the ad hominems around. You know, like accusing people of being delusional or, that they're full of crap and stuff like that? :p

Ad Hominems have no bearing on the factual correctness of the argument (Ergo, your attempts to weaken thaiboxerken's argument is pointless) - it works both ways, you should know that.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further. I have more than a reasonable amount of verifiable evidence that I exist. I do not have the same for any deity.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

I've been silent about my beliefs for too long. I was ashamed that my friends wouldn't agree with me, ohh the humanity. But now it's time to set the record straight:

I believe I exist

There. I've said it. Boy that took guts. Tune in next week when I admit I have ten toes. ;)

Logically, when it comes to accepting my own existence, who is it doing the accepting? It can only be me.

Hence I can't question my own existence, because there would be no-one to do the questioning. However, this is all a matter of your belief, not mine.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, this is all a matter of your belief, not mine.

It is also, however, a belief with evidence - Such as, "I believe that the Sun will rise in the east tomorow and settle in the west".

Whereas a belief in God, however, has no such evidence, and is useless.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, this is all a matter of your belief, not mine.

So if I you don't believe I exist, why do you post a reply to my statement?

Do you frequently argue with non-existant entities? Perhaps you should lie down.



Hey cool, they have flags in the smilies:
:au:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Gulliamo

I have more than a reasonable amount of verifiable evidence that I exist. I do not have the same for any deity. Yes, but if you didn't believe in at least that much, what would you believe? Which is to say your whole sense of being is predicated upon you knowing/believing that you exist. Or else where is your sense of id-entity?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

So if I you don't believe I exist, why do you post a reply to my statement?

Do you frequently argue with non-existant entities? Perhaps you should lie down.

Hey cool, they have flags in the smilies:
:au: Hey, the only time I believe in anything is when I'm aware that it exists. So I can remedy this real quick. :D

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but if you didn't believe in at least that much...

What are you going on about? He already stated that he believes that he exists because there is "reasonable amount of verifiable evidence that [he] exists". Stop making up strawmen.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but if you didn't believe in at least that much, what would you believe? Which is to say your whole sense of being is predicated upon you knowing/believing that you exist. Or else where is your sense of id-entity?

My whole sense of being is indeed based on knowing I exist.

I fail to see how it could be otherwise.

In fact I fail to see what the heck you are talking about.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

It is also, however, a belief with evidence - Such as, "I believe that the Sun will rise in the east tomorow and settle in the west".

Whereas a belief in God, however, has no such evidence, and is useless. If you didn't believe your employer was going to pay you for going to work, would you bother to go to work? Or, let's say if you knew (believed) you would get hit by a car if you ran out in the middle of the freeway, would do it?

So, whether you like it or not, your whole life is contingent upon what you believe. So, please don't come preaching to me -- Mr. Atheist -- what I should believe or, what I shouldn't believe. Okay? You're not the one standing in my shoes.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you didn't believe your employer was going to pay you for going to work, would you bother to go to work?

If there was enough evidence indicating that my employer wasn't going to pay me for my efforts and is exploiting me, then no, I will not go to work.

Or, let's say if you knew (believed) you would hit by a car if ran out in the middle of the freeway, would do it?

If there was enough evidence, or a lot of cars constantly criss-crossing the free way, that I would get hit crossing it, then no, of course I will not cross it.

So, whether you like it or not, your whole life is contingent upon what you believe.

Um....and? Where did I deny this?

So, please don't come preaching to me -- Mr. Atheist -- what I should believe or, what I shouldn't believe.

Do you see me or any of us going around to religious people saying and doing, "Stop believing or we'll force you with very nasty methods"? We are merely pointing out that there is a difference between belief in something which has evidence (That you exist, the sun will rise, etc), and belief in something which has no evidence (God, pink unicorns, faeries, invisible floating incorporeal heatless dragons, etc) - and that belief in something which has no evidence is stupid.

Okay? You're not the one standing in my shoes.

I may not be standing in your Numerological Fantasy world of shoes - but I have been in something similar to it, as with quite a few others here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

What are you going on about? He already stated that he believes that he exists because there is "reasonable amount of verifiable evidence that [he] exists". Stop making up strawmen. However, I must have forgot about him in the meantime. ;)

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you didn't believe your employer was going to pay you for going to work, would you bother to go to work?
I believe my employer will pay me for my work. However this is because I have seen evidence of this. Not only have I seen people being paid, but when I walk into the place I see well fed, clothed people, who would not be able to be so had they not been paid.

Also, believing my boss will pay me presupposes both he, I, and money exist. So are you now ok with people existing?

Originally posted by Iacchus

Or, let's say if you knew (believed) you would hit by a car if ran out in the middle of the freeway, would do it?
So knowledge is the same as belief?

In your reply to my post before you chastised me for using the word belief when you would have used 'aware'.
These are fundamentally different concepts and you use them interchangably.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Do you see me or any of us going around to religious people saying and doing, "Stop believing or we'll force you with very nasty methods"? We are merely pointing out that there is a difference between belief in something which has evidence (That you exist, the sun will rise, etc), and belief in something which has no evidence (God, pink unicorns, faeries, invisible floating incorporeal heatless dragons, etc) - and that belief in something which has no evidence is stupid.No, you have no business even saying such a thing, because you don't even know what belief is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

I may not be standing in your Numerological Fantasy world of shoes - but I have been in something similar to it, as with quite a few others here. If you wish to hold this belief, then that's entirely up to you. However, don't expect me to reciprocate, Okay?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, you have no business even saying such a thing,

Saying what thing? "That belief in something which has no evidence to be stupid"?

Then it is ok to take for granted and believe someone who says that they have a pink dragon in their Garage, but won't show it to you?

because you don't even know what belief is.

I very well know what belief is, as I was raised in a very religious atmosphere in Thailand, and slowly lost it when I came to Hong Kong - Stop presumming to know a person's religious or non-religious background.

If you wish to hold this belief, then that's entirely up to you.

Indeed - I chose not to because I gradually realised that what I believed in wasn't founded on any evidence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

My whole sense of being is indeed based on knowing I exist.

I fail to see how it could be otherwise.

In fact I fail to see what the heck you are talking about. Is this something you're 100 per cent sure about? Or, what about times when you're unaware? What happens to your belief then?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Saying what thing? "That belief in something which has no evidence to be stupid"?So what exactly does this mean? And to whom? Like I say, you're not standing in my shoes?


Then it is ok to take for granted and believe someone who says that they have a pink dragon in their Garage, but won't show it to you?And what pray tell would happen if you're the one who saw it first? ;)


I very well know what belief is, as I was raised in a very religious atmosphere in Thailand, and slowly lost it when I came to Hong Kong - Stop presumming to know a person's religious or non-religious background.Fair enough. However, you can't apply what you know to me in that sense either. Like it or not.


Indeed - I chose not to because I gradually realised that what I believed in wasn't founded on any evidence. Well this is how we learn and grow now isn't it? ;)

[bignickel]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
It's often said that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Ceasar.

I suspect that you've mixed up 2 differant quotes/ideas/memes.

The Julius Caesar one is: There's much more evidence for evolution than for the existence of Julius Caesar.

Or something like that.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what exactly does this mean? And to whom? Like I say, you're not standing in my shoes?

I said: "Belief in something which has no evidence is stupid"

You are saying that I have no business saying such a thing - I have shown you why it is stupid.

And what pray tell would happen if you're the one who saw it first? ;)

Then, of course, I will be convinced that such a thing exists. But there is no evidence that such a thing exists, and no evidence for God or any diety either - Ergo, I do not believe.

Fair enough. However, you can't apply what you know to me in that sense either. Like it or not.

I'm not the one making assumptions about other people's pasts. But I do know that you have a (unverifiable) belief in Swendenbourg's theology - not due to assuming your past, but due to your messages in other threads on this board.

Well this is how we learn and grow now isn't it? ;)

Which you, quite frankly, aren't doing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

I believe my employer will pay me for my work. However this is because I have seen evidence of this. Not only have I seen people being paid, but when I walk into the place I see well fed, clothed people, who would not be able to be so had they not been paid. Seeing is believing, right? Hey, I'm only replying here because I didn't want you to think I forgot about you. :D

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Riddick

Accusing all of the above could also qualify as flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling, would it not?


Only if you are a stunted adolescent with a chip on your shoulder.

Are you?


Yes, I'm well aware that the atheist "rubber stamp" places the burden on me.


And yet...


I'm surprised you don't want to prove it for yourself, being the discovering type that you are.


Okay, you prove that unicorns don't exist and I'll prove that a God does. ::rolleyes::


I'm not gullible enough to just blindly assume God doesn't exist.


Yet you are gullible enough to assume God does exist based on passages that have been translated by illiterate humans by hand for generations within an organization run by humans trying to maintain their wealth and station in the social order?


Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

2,000 year old proof is still proof. But you must be talking about actual proof, not the Bible, right?

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but if you didn't believe in at least that much, what would you believe?[/i] I am unsure of what you are getting at but I "believe" that my signature says it all.

This is really the same faith = trust argument that I (we) have had a hundred times here.

Faith = belief without evidence
Trust= belief with evidence

We I say belief I am referring to the latter, with evidence, version.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Gulliamo

I am unsure of what you are getting at but I "believe" that my signature says it all.

This is really the same faith = trust argument that I (we) have had a hundred times here.

Faith = belief without evidence
Trust= belief with evidence

We I say belief I am referring to the latter, with evidence, version. It's too bad you can't get the "belief" word from out in the middle of it though, right? All it suggests is that there's different levels of belief which, is all there will ever be. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's too bad you can't get the "belief" word from out in the middle of it though, right? All it suggests is that there's different levels of belief which, is all there will ever be. ;)

You play with word games, just like you do with numbers - whilst completely ignoring the point and making useless comments, giving the impression that you actually have something to say.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

You play with word games, just like you do with numbers - whilst completely ignoring the point and making useless comments, giving the impression that you actually have something to say. Are you sure that what you're saying here should not go uncontested? And how much so? Can you give me at least a rough percentage please?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you sure that what you're saying here should not go uncontested? And how much so? Can you give me at least a rough percentage please?

My my - you really do have a knack for ironically proving my point don't you?

I grow tired of this - as others have pointed out to you, you are simply impervious to logic.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

My my - you really do have a knack for ironically proving my point don't you?

I grow tired of this - as others have pointed out to you, you are simply impervious to logic. All I'm trying to point out is that you have no more basis for saying what you do than I. And you don't.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All I'm trying to point out is that you have no more basis for saying what you do than I. And you don't.

You're saying that a position that blindly accepts a postulation without any backing of evidence has the same basis as a position that exists on evidence?

Pray tell me - are you serious?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

You're saying that a position that blindly accepts a postulation without any backing of evidence has the same basis as a position that exists on evidence?

Pray tell me - are you serious? I'm saying that nothing is 100 percent foolproof. Indeed, we may very well be living in The Matrix and we don't know it. So that blasts any notion of an external reality clear out of the water.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[quote]I'm saying that nothing is 100 percent foolproof. Indeed, we may very well be living in The Matrix and we don't know it.

Then how did you reach such a conclusion in the first place if there was no way of knowing, unless you were wishfully thinking?

So that blasts any notion of an external reality clear out of the water.

Non sequitor.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Then how did you reach such a conclusion in the first place if there was no way of knowing, unless you were wishfully thinking?Well, I wish very much to remain alive, if that's what you mean. Isn't that pretty much what life is about? ;)


Non sequitor. Wrong.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I wish very much to remain alive if that's what you mean. Isn't that pretty much what life is about? ;)

You didn't answer the question, just like every other thread you're in, evasion noted.

Wrong.

Then please - tell me how does "Not knowing" that we might live in the Matrix (Which I have already pointed out to you that believing in such a thing involves Wishful thinking) blast external reality out of the water?



Edit: Besides - Zaarydragon is trashing you about that right now in another thread.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

You didn't answer the question, just like every other thread you're in, evasion noted.Life is capricious, indeed! Ever try to catch the wind in your hand? As soon as you think you've got it it's gone. ;)


Edit: Besides - Zaarydragon is trashing you about that right now in another thread. Wishful thinking, right? ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Life is capricious, indeed! Ever try to catch the wind in your hand? As soon as you think you've got it it's gone. ;)

Still evading and not answering questions. Hey - whatever floats your modus operandi.

Wishful thinking, right? ;)

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42820

[Z]

Eek... don't think of it as 'trashing'. Think of it as 'friendly disagreement with maximum prejudice". :D

lol

didn't know my views warranted such a comment

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

didn't know my views warranted such a comment They don't. :D

[Z]

... A pox upon your firstborn, Iacchus, and a wart upon your tushie.

:D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

... A pox upon your firstborn, Iacchus, and a wart upon your tushie.

:D Oh, do you actually believe in that stuff? Is that why you've left the door open to the possibility of God? Hey, I have it upon good authority that that stuff actually works -- if, you know what you're doing that is. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

And by the way, if you don't believe in god, you still can't escape the fact that you have to believe in something, or else how would you function?

False, I don't need beliefs to function.

For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further.

No, I don't believe I exist, I actually know I exist and this knowledge is based on evidence.

Why? Because you haven't established a basis by which to accept anything. And why should I bother?

No need for beliefs, just conclusions.

So, before we continue this little game of semantics further, you might want to bear this in mind. ;)

You are the one playing silly semantic games by trying to equivocate belief in gods with knowledge and conclusions.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

False, I don't need beliefs to function.Wrong. A machine doesn't need beliefs in order to function.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Wrong. A machine doesn't need beliefs in order to function.

You seem to be using the words belief, know, and aware in different ways to the average person.

Could you please give a short definition of each , followed by an simple example of each concept. This way we can understand what you are saying better.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

You seem to be using the words belief, know, and aware in different ways to the average person.

Could you please give a short definition of each , followed by an simple example of each concept. This way we can understand what you are saying better. To know is more of a confirmed belief, but a belief nonetheless. While awareness is the basis which allows you to believe or to know. Oh, what is a belief? ... A precept which you hold to be true, which is typically required in order for a person to function properly.

And I bet you didn't think I would answer that now did you? :D

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
To know is more of a confirmed belief, but a belief nonetheless. While awareness is the basis which allows you to believe or to know. Oh, what is a belief? ... A precept which you hold to be true, which is typically required in order for a person to function properly.

And I bet you didn't think I would answer that now did you? :D

So is the point that you are trying to make in the previous posts that all beliefs are equal?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Wrong. A machine doesn't need beliefs in order to function.

So? You are still playing semantic word games without addressing the actual points. You are not even addressing what tbk is saying.

You state that people need unverifiable beliefs to function - to which we have disproven.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

So? You are still playing semantic word games without addressing the actual points. You are not even addressing what tbk is saying.I'm saying that if he's capable of functioning without belief then he must be a machine; either that or in a coma. :p


You state that people need unverifiable beliefs to function - to which we have disproven. Yes, but how do you know for sure? How do you know for a fact that we aren't living in The Matrix? If you're saying we can be 100 percent certain that we're not, then you're mistaken. By the way, have you read my new signature?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

So is the point that you are trying to make in the previous posts that all beliefs are equal? Ever watch David Copperfield? Now what does that tell you? ... That our perception can be fooled. So how do we know that the everyday world that we see in front of is nothing but a big stunt? Now, we can speculate on it all we want but, the thing is we don't know.

[wittgenst3in]

I'll say it again,

So is the point that you are trying to make in the previous posts that all beliefs are equal?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

I'll say it again,

So is the point that you are trying to make in the previous posts that all beliefs are equal? Equal in the sense that they are subjective? Yes. While we all live in our own little bubble of awareness which, can never be breached ... to truly experience what's on the other side.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Equal in the sense that they are subjective? Yes. While we all live in our own little bubble of awareness which, can never be breached ... to truly experience what's on the other side.

Well duh.

That dosen't stop us from trying to infer things about the outside world. Such as the rule that if a large shape is bearing down on you with 2 windows and a 'GREYHOUND' logois most likely a bus, and to get the hell out of the way.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

Well duh.

That dosen't stop us from trying to infer things about the outside world. Such as the rule that if a large shape is bearing down on you with 2 windows and a 'GREYHOUND' logois most likely a bus, and to get the hell out of the way. And what if you didn't believe the bus could hurt you? This wouldn't be the best place to practice your belief now would it? ;)

[Doctor X]

I am unsure of what you are getting at but I "believe" that my signature says it all.

More posters should benefit from the wisdom of Gulliamo's post.

--J.D.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what if you didn't believe the bus could hurt you? This wouldn't be the best place to practice your belief now would it? ;)

I am completely unsure of what your point is. As is, I gather, everyone else.


Equal in the sense that they are subjective? Yes. While we all live in our own little bubble of awareness which, can never be breached ... to truly experience what's on the other side.

The reason I introduced the example was to point out that a bus is certainly capable of breaching someone's bubble of awareness. You can think it won't hurt you but the reality of a speeding bus will assert itself whether you 'believe' in it or not.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm saying that if he's capable of functioning without belief then he must be a machine; either that or in a coma. :p

But he is not a machine, and neither is he a coma - we have shown you that people are able to function without believing in unverifiable beliefs - Ergo, you are wrong.

Yes, but how do you know for sure? How do you know for a fact that we aren't living in The Matrix? If you're saying we can be 100 percent certain that we're not, then you're mistaken. By the way, have you read my new signature?

Wonderfull - Zaayrdragon and BillHoyt have thoroughly debunked what you're stating only a few posts back and in other fresh threads still at the top of the forumn - And you conviniently "forget" them - What a warped world you live in.

And what if you didn't believe the bus could hurt you? This wouldn't be the best place to practice your belief now would it?

He isn't the one stating that there isn't an external reality - you are - do you even forget your own position?

Edit: I grow tired of this - wittgenst3in, he's all yours, have fun.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Edit: I grow tired of this - wittgenst3in, he's all yours, have fun.

Unless he comes up with something intelligible soon I'll join you.

And by intelligible I don't mean stuff like So how do we know that the everyday world that we see in front of is nothing but a big stunt? Now, we can speculate on it all we want but, the thing is we don't know.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
Unless he comes up with something intelligible soon I'll join you.

I wouldn't count on it - he's been doing this since his apperance on the forum and with posts filled with Numerological nonsense.

And by intelligible I don't mean stuff like

Indeed, he's able to at least string words together eloquently like Indoctrinated Ian, but without any substance behind them - Quite frankly - I don't know where BillHoyt and CFLarsen get their stamina from.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

I wouldn't count on it - he's been doing this since his apperance on the forum and with posts filled with Numerological nonsense.Nonsense? And what were you saying about me in the other thread? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42823&perpage=40&pagenumber=5) Now this isn't the first time you've accused me of posting nonsense either now is it? You don't think that's the least bit condescending or, belittling?


Indeed, he's able to at least string words together eloquently like Indoctrinated Ian, but without any substance behind them - Quite frankly - I don't know where BillHoyt and CFLarsen get their stamina from. Actually, I rarely debate with either one.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nonsense? And what were you saying about me in the other thread? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42823&perpage=40&pagenumber=5)

I called you nonsensical here, and called you nonsensical there -What are point are you trying to make? Are you alright? Are you even tripping over your own words now?

You're not even going to make an attempt to defend your numerology?

Now this isn't the first time you've accused me of posting nonsense either now is it? You don't think that's the least bit condescending or, belittling?

I always had my suspicions - just debating with you has confirmed them - and everyone else following and reading.

Actually, I rarely debate with either one.

No wonder - because you wouldn't be able to answer back - as is evident right now with BillHoyt. And simply skirt around the issue with nonsensical words. Like me right now, with wittgenstein, as with many other examples.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Wrong. A machine doesn't need beliefs in order to function.

You are full of crap. Simply put, you make many assertions that are not backed by science or evidence. You equivocate knowledge, belief and conclusions and axioms. The human brain is much like machine, complex as it is, that works because of the physical parts it is made up of. It needs no beliefs to function properly, just axioms and programming. Of course, most people are programmed to believe in nonsense of some sort or another, but such beliefs are not necessarily for a human to function.

[Z]

Well, I don't have the stamina to constantly harrass II, Iac, and Rad - although, at least Rad makes an iota of sense, once in a while.

Instead, I hit-and-run - spew a little sensory logic at them, try DESPERATELY to make a point with what intelligent visitors there may be, then run back to Vice City or Civ III or The Sims Too-Darned-Many-Expansions-But-I-Got-Them-All...

lol

Back to a point you made, Iacchus, did you know that curses like those DO work - in cases where the victim is so superstitious and so convinced of the reality of the curse, that they end up fulfilling the curse themselves?

In my reseach of religions, I was blessed to come to know a certain Voodoo priest, Brother Chord, who made a statement I'll never forget:

(paraphrased)

"It is not needful that I believe in the power of the Loa - only that my Children believe in my power." (By Children he was referring to those who had faith in Voudoun)

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm saying that nothing is 100 percent foolproof. Indeed, we may very well be living in The Matrix and we don't know it. So that blasts any notion of an external reality clear out of the water.

So how do you know that god is real if you don't know that anything is real?

[c0rbin]

Zing!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


So how do you know that god is real if you don't know that anything is real?

It is assumed just as everything else is assumed.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


It is assumed just as everything else is assumed.


So you don't really know that god is real, you just assume it. What makes your assumptions any more valid than my assumptions?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

So how do you know that god is real if you don't know that anything is real? Well, maybe we don't. But it's just like anything else, you have to study and inquire about it.

Also, being the subjective creatures that we are, it lends itself very well to the idea that man is religious by nature. What else could you possibly expect, since it all entails belief. So, maybe this was part of the overall design, in order to establish a relationship with God. In other words, man was obviously set up this way.

So, if you were to look at it this way, it might be one possible indication (and it is) that you're looing in the right direction.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, maybe we don't. But it's just like anything else, you have to study and inquire about it.

How - and which God, or Gods (To which, you still haven't answered)?

Also, being the subjective creatures that we are, it lends itself very well to the idea that man is religious by nature.

Non sequitor.

What else could you possibly expect, since it all entails belief.

Belief of?

So, maybe this was part of the overall design, in order to establish a relationship with God. In other words, man was obviously set up this way.

More blatant assumption and rampant speculation without evidence.

So, if you were to look at it this way, it might be one possible indication (and it is) that you're looing in the right direction.

Or a creduloid.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, maybe we don't. But it's just like anything else, you have to study and inquire about it.

Also, being the subjective creatures that we are, it lends itself very well to the idea that man is religious by nature. What else could you possibly expect, since it all entails belief. So, maybe this was part of the overall design, in order to establish a relationship with God. In other words, man was obviously set up this way.

So, if you were to look at it this way, it might be one possible indication (and it is) that you're looing in the right direction.

So some people were set up to believe in deities whether they exist or not. Is that what you are saying?

edited to correct a dumb grammatical error

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

How - and which God, or Gods (To which, you still haven't answered)?Study and inquire, and I mean on your own here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

So some people was set up to believe in deities whether they exist or not. Is that what you are saying? Well it all depends on how you look at it guess? If you don't see how this lends itself to the idea of man being a religious creature, and that he was created in this respect, then there's not much I can say.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well it all depends on how you look at it guess? If you don't see how this lends itself to the idea of man being a religious creature, and that he was created in this respect, then there's not much I can say.

But how do you know that there is really a deity as opposed to a mere chemical reaction in your brain?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Study and inquire, and I mean on your own here.

Study and inquire about what? Whether God, or Gods exist?

I already have - there is no proof that any of them exist, ergo, I do not believe.

And since by that statement you seem to have trouble discerning what I mean, let me explain it for you.

Which one religion, or sect, is the one true religion? Since most religions claim to be the "Truth", that, therefore, makes them claim to be mutually exclusive to all others, and that all others are false.

[Iacchus]

http://www.dionysus.org/images/swed_borg.jpg (http://www.swedenborg.org/)

Please click on picture to go to True Church.

[RabbiSatan]

:big:

I'm just going to sit back and watch this time.

(On a side note - it's interesting to see the religions evolve, from polytheism, to monotheism, to use of fear and hell to put people in line and to scare non-believers into conforming, and now, with Swedenborg's Church, to guarantee people of all creeds access to heaven to lure people into that Church).

[Iacchus]

Now why do I feel like you've been baiting me all this time?

[RabbiSatan]

Baiting? Hardly - more or less means that I've grown tired of repeating myself asking you to address the points.

[Z]

So now you've gone to faith in Swedenborg.

Why can't you just think for yourself instead?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

So now you've gone to faith in Swedenborg.

Why can't you just think for yourself instead? Who me? No I don't place any faith in Swedenborg. And, although I'm inclined to agree with him, I use his materials as a reference more than anything else.

I don't belong to any church by the way.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
:big:

I'm just going to sit back and watch this time.

(On a side note - it's interesting to see the religions evolve, from polytheism, to monotheism, to use of fear and hell to put people in line and to scare non-believers into conforming, and now, with Swedenborg's Church, to guarantee people of all creeds access to heaven to lure people into that Church). Yes, and what would one of the signs of the True Church be? Tolerance.

Which, seems to be in a real short supply around here. ;)

[daenku32]

If

With God any thing is possible.

Then

With God belief any belief is possible.


How dare any theist not believe in everything!

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
http://www.dionysus.org/images/swed_borg.jpg (http://www.swedenborg.org/)

Please click on picture to go to True Church.

All people strive for that [goodness] already.

Giving a heaven doesn't do much. But I assume there is a monetary fee.

[Z]

Tolerating belief is one thing; tolerating ignorance, quite another.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Tolerating belief is one thing; tolerating ignorance, quite another.

Indeed - unfortunately, Iacchus tends to display the latter.

[dmarker]

My question:
But how do you know that there is really a deity as opposed to a mere chemical reaction in your brain?

Iacchus' answer:


Originally posted by Iacchus
http://www.dionysus.org/images/swed_borg.jpg (http://www.swedenborg.org/)

Please click on picture to go to True Church.

I'll take that to mean that you don't really know that there are any deities whatsoever.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X


His posts rather exemplify the phenomenon.

--J.D.

Which goes to show that you don't know equivocation from urination. Probably think it's right next to your tendinous buccinator attachment. That's what too much Jerry Springer will do.

[Z]

The informal fallacy that can result when an ambiguous word or phrase is used in different senses within a single argument. Example: "Odd things arouse human suspicion. But seventeen is an odd number. Therefore, seventeen arouses human suspicion."
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm

I think I know equivocate from urinate.

However, I've only seen equivocation from LifeGazer, Iacchus, and Irritating Ian, so far - and ignorance from you.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm

I think I know equivocate from urinate.

However, I've only seen equivocation from LifeGazer, Iacchus, and Irritating Ian, so far - and ignorance from you.



Coming from the likes of you--I take that as a compliment.;)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Radrook




Coming from the likes of you--I take that as a compliment.;)




toidi

[Z]

?toidi a gnillac uoy era ohW

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

With God belief any belief is possible.And every belief is, don't you think? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

My question:
But how do you know that there is really a deity as opposed to a mere chemical reaction in your brain?

Iacchus' answer:

I'll take that to mean that you don't really know that there are any deities whatsoever. Obviously you didn't think my post was directed to you, otherwise why would there be a post inbetween? Perhaps we shouldn't misconstrue my ignoring a dumb question for the inability to give a meaningful reply?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

toidi Ad hominem. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

How dare any theist not believe in everything! Actually the most important thing here I think is that you have a Mother and a Father and, a sense of beginning. This is really all that religion entails.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Baiting? Hardly - more or less means that I've grown tired of repeating myself asking you to address the points. Actually, with all the ad hominem attacks from the very onset, I couldn't help but think you were one of the most ignorant people on the board. But now, that you've come out of the closest so to speak, I couldn't help but think I was being baited. ;)

And, while I don't happen to agree with you, you certainly do have something to say. In fact it's hard to believe that you're only 17. Of course I am too, give or take 30 years (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html). :D

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Iacchus

And, while I don't happen to agree with you, you certainly do have something to say. In fact it's hard to believe that you're only 17. Of course I am too, give or take 30 years (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html). :D

I find it hard to believe that RabbiSatan is younger than Iacchus too. From reading their posts I'm sure it would be the other way around.

[thaiboxerken]

Iacchus, you have no real authority to call anyone ignorant, since you are extremely ignorant of how reality works and what real evidence is. You are ignorant of logic and reason and you are ignorant of what is actually intelligent thinking. You are a fool trying to play a game of chess with the chess masters. You have lost all of your debates in the forum, and every post you place only shows the world how much of an idiot you really are. Rabbi Satan, at 17, is much more mature, intelligent and a much better critical thinker than you ever were or will be.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

I find it hard to believe that RabbiSatan is younger than Iacchus too. From reading their posts I'm sure it would be the other way around. You're only as young as you feel. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Iacchus, you have no real authority to call anyone ignorant, since you are extremely ignorant of how reality works and what real evidence is. You are ignorant of logic and reason and you are ignorant of what is actually intelligent thinking. You are a fool trying to play a game of chess with the chess masters. You have lost all of your debates in the forum, and every post you place only shows the world how much of an idiot you really are. Rabbi Satan, at 17, is much more mature, intelligent and a much better critical thinker than you ever were or will be. Exactly! I really don't know anything which, is what I've been trying to tell everyone all along. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

I find it hard to believe that RabbiSatan is younger than Iacchus too. From reading their posts I'm sure it would be the other way around. Yeah, have you seen his avatar? He sure looks like a grumpy old man now doesn't he? :D

[Doctor X]

Which goes to show that you don't know equivocation from urination.

The Coward exemplifies both.

Probably think it's right next to your tendinous (sic) buccinator attachment.

Temporalis.

That's what too much Jerry Springer will do.


As the Coward has demonstrated with his ignorance above.

Now run along, little boy, else you may have to confront the evidence.

--J.D.