Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Not in chocolate-hazelnut they don't. I checked.

Curse you PixyMisa, for shattering all of my illusions.

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Snip
At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.

However, if you are knowledgeable about the Abrahamic God, and feel like sharing here your difficulties with that God, you are welcome to contribute your thoughts here.


Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.

What are the things people would love more than God?

And why do people have grudges against God?



I am thinking along those two directions.
Snip

So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God. Yrreg

OK, I'll bite. I was raised in a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. I was very devoted at a young age and determined to read the Bible cover-to-cover. I did so twice in one summer (KJV and Modern English) and in the context of comprehending it as a whole, saw how the concept of God changed according to the needs of the tribe and how the morality of the God portrayed therein was inferior and relativistic. Murdering babies was not inherently wrong, it was right if God commanded it. I determined that if there was a God, I hoped the Bible was an unreliable source of information about Him, as that God was clearly unworthy of worship.

As the years went by I came to doubt there that God existed at all. Eventually I had the interesting experience of taking a course on Comparative Religion with a professor keen to justify belief in religion at the same time I took a course in logic. Realizing for the first time how weak the arguments for the existence of God are, I realized that I no longer felt the need to actively maintain a consideration for the possibility of God: if there's no convincing evidence for something there's no reason believe in it.

I hope you find this testimony from someone familiar with the Abrahamic God useful.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.

The rest of us didn't give you the right answers, eh?

[Ryokan]

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism? I guess the question wether he was a Christian fundamentalist or not has been answered.

ETA: Ah, I see he's been back for a while. I should check out the JREF forum more often than I do these days....

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism?

Yup, apparently the Buddhists have tired of him, so he's shifted his attention to us. With about as much insight and understanding as his earlier posts.

[Ryokan]

At least he's getting a broader audience now. Yrreg is fun to read.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

To say that you are an atheist because you see no evidence of God is illogical. You would be an agnostic, as you are willing to be persuaded by evidence.

I have seen no evidence for UFO's. But I cannot conclude that UFO's do NOT exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of them.

Well, as I said already, that kind of comparison does not carry any water, because God is not any UFO by any stretch of imagination.

However, on that line of thinking, you can also say that as with atheists in general who harp on evidence, you should also say that:

I have seen no evidence for God [vice, UFO's]. But I cannot conclude that God does not [vice, UFO's do NOT] exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of God [vice, them].

But knowing your kind of heart and mind, that just goes to show that you have not seen everything, or most probably even certainly you have a limited imperfect vision.



That is why the more I examine atheists and their contorted abuse of reason and intelligence, I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that atheists are not being rational and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irrational and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.


No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of God, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.

Because ants and monkeys are perfectly adapted living things though not endowed with reason, and thus do not exercise intellitgence, wherefore they don't exhibit any recognition of God.



See? If you be intelligent and reasonable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your reasoning faculty, you would conclude that it is more reasonable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of God, than to wilfully deny.



Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism? I guess the question wether he was a Christian fundamentalist or not has been answered.

ETA: Ah, I see he's been back for a while. I should check out the JREF forum more often than I do these days....

He still says he cured you of buddhism as well....




Hiya Ryokan!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Dyrreg

Well, as I said already, that kind of comparison does not carry any water, because Bigfoot is not any UFO by any stretch of imagination.

However, on that line of thinking, you can also say that as with doo doo heads in general who harp on evidence, you should also say that:

I have seen no evidence for Bigfoot [vice, UFO's]. But I cannot conclude that Bigfoot does not [vice, UFO's do NOT] exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of Bigfoot [vice, them].

But knowing your kind of heart and mind, that just goes to show that you have not seen everything, or most probably even certainly you have a limited imperfect vision.



That is why the more I examine doo doo heads and their contorted abuse of my thoughts and agree with me, I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that doo doo heads are not being think like me and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irthink like me and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.


No offense intended, but if doo doo heads don't want to use their my thoughts and intelligently come to the knowledge of Bigfoot, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.

Because ants and monkeys are perfectly adapted living things though not endowed with my thoughts, and thus do not exercise intellitgence, wherefore they don't exhibit any recognition of Bigfoot.



See? If you be intelligent and my thoughtsable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your my thoughtsing faculty, you would conclude that it is more my thoughtsable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of Bigfoot, than to wilfully deny.



Dyrreg

For humor only!

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Don't worship any graven idols? I don't think I've ever been in a church without a crucifix. Some of them depict particularly gooey deaths. What the heck distinguishes them from graven idols?

An idol is a physical object within which a God is alleged to reside. Given that Christians do not believe their God actually resides inside the Crucifix, it is not an idol (by the way, all crucifixes depict a particularly gooey death as a crucifix bears the image of Christ upon the cross, as opposed to just a blank cross (also used by Christians) which is not a crucifix). On another note, I always understood the commandment to be "false idols", which would further indicate that worshiping actual idols is fine, merely that worshiping an object that is alleged to contain a deity but in fact does not, is wrong.

This all seems to be confirmed by "Worship no other Gods before me" which implies that A) Other Gods exist and B) Worshiping them is okay as long as you put Yahweh at the top of your list. Were this not true the commandment would simply read "I'm the only God, period".

I've often argued that the Ten Commandments are actually evidence that God is no the only God, and that worshiping other Gods is fine.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Well, as I said already, that kind of comparison does not carry any water, because God is not any UFO by any stretch of imagination.

How do you know?

We have no evidence for God. We have no evidence for UFOs. They could be the same thing!

Quote:

However, on that line of thinking, you can also say that as with atheists in general who harp on evidence, you should also say that:

I have seen no evidence for God [vice, UFO's]. But I cannot conclude that God does not [vice, UFO's do NOT] exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of God [vice, them].

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in god(s), which is the only sensible position given the lack of evidence.

I don't know that there is nothing that exists that couldn't aptly be described as a god. But I know that your God is a myth.

Quote:

But knowing your kind of heart and mind, that just goes to show that you have not seen everything, or most probably even certainly you have a limited imperfect vision.

Sure. That goes without saying. But you still have, let's count it... Zero evidence for the existence of your God, and all sorts of evidence that it's a myth.

Quote:

That is why the more I examine atheists and their contorted abuse of reason and intelligence

What abuse might that be?

Quote:

I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that atheists are not being rational and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irrational and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.

You do like to believe in things contrary to all evidence, don't you?

Quote:

No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of God, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.

If you want us to believe in your God, the process is very simple: Show us the evidence. Any evidence at all would be nice.

Quote:

Because ants and monkeys are perfectly adapted living things though not endowed with reason, and thus do not exercise intellitgence, wherefore they don't exhibit any recognition of God.

Ants don't believe in fairies either.

Quote:

See? If you be intelligent and reasonable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your reasoning faculty, you would conclude that it is more reasonable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of God, than to wilfully deny.

We would be happy to admit the existence of God - or Thor, or Kali, or whomever. We merely ask for evidence. We wouldn't admit the existence of sheep without evidence; why should we give any special consideration Amaterasu or Aphrodite?

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

At least he's getting a broader audience now. Yrreg is fun to read.

I still don't like to reply to him, seeing as to how he is, after all, a very obvious troll.

But then again, if it informs or entertains the readers, then who am I to complain.

Quote:

We have no evidence for God. We have no evidence for UFOs. They could be the same thing!

Fundamentalists tend to not judge analogies involving their God based on their validity, but on how much or little they make said God look bad.

Quote:

He still says he cured you of buddhism as well....

[former buddhist hat on]

Nonsense. All humans are born with the knowledge in their hearts that Buddhism is the right way to go. You cannot be 'cured' of this knowledge more than you can be 'cured' of knowing that 2+2=4!

[former buddhist hat off]

Quote:

Ants don't believe in fairies either.

Sigh. Come on, now, Misa, it's really, really simple. Surely I don't need to spell it out to you?

1. Ants are not intelligent.
2. Ants are, strictly speaking, atheists.
3. Hence, atheism is a sign of lack of intelligence.

Yrreg has taken this to its logical conclusion:
1. Ants are not intelligent.
2. Ants never troll message boards.
3. Profit!1

[Foster Zygote]

I never really followed the whole "yrreg on Buddhism" bit, but I'm assuming that most of his threads run pretty much like this one, ending with him ignoring everything that is written in contradiction of his asinine assertions and simply preaching and grooving on the self-perceived cleverness of his own words.

[Safe-Keeper]

You can stop merely assuming. They do.

[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.

-------------------------------

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

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

OK, I'll bite. I was raised in a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. I was very devoted at a young age and determined to read the Bible cover-to-cover. I did so twice in one summer (KJV and Modern English) and in the context of comprehending it as a whole, saw how the concept of God changed according to the needs of the tribe and how the morality of the God portrayed therein was inferior and relativistic. Murdering babies was not inherently wrong, it was right if God commanded it. I determined that if there was a God, I hoped the Bible was an unreliable source of information about Him, as that God was clearly unworthy of worship.

As the years went by I came to doubt there that God existed at all. Eventually I had the interesting experience of taking a course on Comparative Religion with a professor keen to justify belief in religion at the same time I took a course in logic. Realizing for the first time how weak the arguments for the existence of God are, I realized that I no longer felt the need to actively maintain a consideration for the possibility of God: if there's no convincing evidence for something there's no reason believe in it.

I hope you find this testimony from someone familiar with the Abrahamic God useful.

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

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I never really followed the whole "yrreg on Buddhism" bit, but I'm assuming that most of his threads run pretty much like this one, ending with him ignoring everything that is written in contradiction of his asinine assertions and simply preaching and grooving on the self-perceived cleverness of his own words.

Some are funnier than others.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism? I guess the question whether he was a Christian fundamentalist or not has been answered.

ETA: Ah, I see he's been back for a while. I should check out the JREF forum more often than I do these days....

Don't bring in that tack about dealing with a fundamentalist Christian, just keep to ideas.

I am or call myself a postgraduate Catholic, the only in the world of my own kind of theists of the Christian school.

Did I mention this already in my posts on critique of Buddhism?


Glad to see yo again, Ryokan, I was afraid that you had gone over to another round of rebirth.

You know if such was the case, you are lucky thanks to your karma, that you have come back in your new rebirth as a human, because only in human rebirth can a living thing get to work out his bad karma and earn good karma, to get finally to parinirvana then upon death to ultimate definitive nirvana, complete extinction from existence, no more suffering ever.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by gumboot

[...]

I've often argued that the Ten Commandments are actually evidence that God is no the only God, and that worshiping other Gods is fine.

Of course the more the merrier.

And just in case you miss one, just put up an altar with the inscription, "To the Unknown God."


And the Bible also mentions that sons of men are gods and the husband is god to the wife.



what is that phrase about dumbing-down oneself?


But you are not as smart as some simple folks who have in their home altar both Jesus and Buddha, just to make sure that everyone is happy up there wherever.

By the way if you ask me, at this stage and state of mankind, man has discovered the most economical and convenient way of dealing with gods, just draw the the correct conclusion and keep to that practice that there is only one God.



Yrreg

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Tell me what is the relevance of Odin in today's talk about taking the Christian God seriously or denying Him.

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.

[The Man]

Originally 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.

Originally 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.

[Silentknight]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, let's start off right away.

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

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

Oh wait, you were being serious about that. Very well. Show me a picture of God, a recording of God in the act of designing things, or something he actually wrote himself (preferrably peer-reviewed).

There, now you owe me a cookie. Though I'd also settle for a baby. Preferably fresh, not frozen.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Don't bring in that tack about dealing with a fundamentalist Christian, just keep to ideas.

I am or call myself a postgraduate Catholic, the only in the world of my own kind of theists of the Christian school.

Did I mention this already in my posts on critique of Buddhism?


Glad to see yo again, Ryokan, I was afraid that you had gone over to another round of rebirth.

You know if such was the case, you are lucky thanks to your karma, that you have come back in your new rebirth as a human, because only in human rebirth can a living thing get to work out his bad karma and earn good karma, to get finally to parinirvana then upon death to ultimate definitive nirvana, complete extinction from existence, no more suffering ever.



Yrreg

Further proof you ignored the discussions or the possible alternate interpretations of rebirth, kamma and nibbana.

Shows you haven't read Thich Naht Hahn either.

Death is transformation, since there is no soul and no self, it is just that transformation. But the acts one chooses to make carry on even after the transformation.

[Dancing David]

Originally 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.

He only has one eye?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Since atheists love to bring up the word evidence in order to not have to think at all

Could you please, just once, write something without throwing spurious insults at everyone who disagrees with you?

Quote:

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.

Here we are talking about reality, as in, whether God is real or imaginary, so I'll say: Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

Got any?

Quote:

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.

Hmm. No, sorry, it's working for me.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Later, later please, I will do a thread on complaints of atheists against God.

In the meantime don't feel so aggrieved

How do you come to the conclusion that he feels aggrieved at all? All he has said is that there is no evidence that God exists, and that a study of the Bible shows that the God described therein is capricious at best.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

By the way if you ask me, at this stage and state of mankind, man has discovered the most economical and convenient way of dealing with gods, just draw the the correct conclusion and keep to that practice that there is only one God.

Whereupon Raven and Inanna and Baal and Taranis all strike you with lightning, and Anubis and Quetzalcoatl squabble over your fricasseed remains.

Not so great, on the whole.

[yrreg]

Originally 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

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

How do you come to the conclusion that he feels aggrieved at all? All he has said is that there is no evidence that God exists, and that a study of the Bible shows that the God described therein is capricious at best.

Of course you will also deny that you are an angry atheist.



Yrreg

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

And you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81satr%C3%BA

ETA: http://www.asatru.org/

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by The Man

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.

Haha, gotcha!

I read your post twice carefully and still cannot find what you can inform readers here to the question:

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?

Yrreg

[ Please anyone here, technicians of this forum, why am I not able to highlight a line and then click on the format link like bold, italic, underline, but must spell out the format code character by character. ]

[ Thanks, The Man, for not resorting to angry language, let's continue to enjoy this exchange of ideas, whether there be God or not; best regards. ]

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

Depending on the exact question asked, probably somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000.

Quote:

Did I say that I reject Odin?

Well, do you?

Quote:

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

Yes, you said that. We pointed out why you are wrong.

Quote:

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

No it isn't.

Odin was the chief of their gods, but they had many others - Thor and Loki and Freya and Sif and Idunn and Heimdall and Balder and a couple of dozen others.

Quote:

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.

Why? What is the evidence that would convince you of Odin's existence?

And would you likewise believe in Thor and Loki and Freya and Sif and Idunn and Heimdall and Balder - and a couple of dozen others?

Quote:

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.

What's the difference? Really, what's the difference?

We see two beings out of myth. The only difference we see is that Norse myth is cooler than Judeo-Christian myth.

Quote:

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.

What you seem to be saying is that you will believe what everyone else believes, without bothering to question. That makes Odin very relevant to the discussion. If you would have believed in Odin as a Norseman, but not now, what's the difference?

Quote:

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.

No. We would have regarded both as myths.

Quote:

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

Don't know about Norway specifically, but between 100,000 and one million worldwide.

Quote:

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?

From the 1st Edition Deities and Demigods. (I have the original version with the Elric and Cthulhu sections, which is apparently worth quite a bit of money on eBay.)

Quote:

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

Why do we need "original" reasons? What's wrong with a complete lack of evidence?

Quote:

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

Osiris
Zeus
Marduk
Deva
Perun
Brahma
Inari
Sun Wukong

Quote:

Yrreg

Nah.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Of course you will also deny that you are an angry atheist.

Merely... irked.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Haha, gotcha!

No, you only got yourself.

Quote:

I read your post twice carefully and still cannot find what you can inform readers here to the question

Then you have a problem with your reading comprehension, because he clearly and concisely answered your question.

Quote:

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

He did.

Quote:

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

Try reading it again.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

I tried to search for some estimates of how many people follow the Asatru religion, but couldn't find any.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Did I say that I reject Odin?

I inferred from your posts that you strive to follow the Christian Ten Commandments. One of those commandments is "You shall have no other gods before me". I apologize if my assumption was incorrect.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

What does the date have to do with whether a god exists or not?

Originally Posted by yrreg

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; they had several.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

So what gods exist depends on the time and place?

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

What do you mean by "today's God?" The Christian god is different today than he was 100 or 1000 years ago?

Originally Posted by yrreg

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 it's the same god, why the commandment about not following other gods? And why was the Catholic church so adamant about getting Scandinavians to convert to Christianity?

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

As I said, I couldn't find a number estimate, but there are followers of the Norse gods in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and the United States.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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?

I learned about various different religions when I was a child. I haven't bought any books about atheism. I came to atheism on my own by, among other things, learning about all the different gods people have believed in throughout history.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

Done and done, a long time ago.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

It's called an "analogy". Think about why you don't believe in Odin, and you may start to understand why atheists don't believe in the Christian god.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by yrreg

[ Please anyone here, technicians of this forum, why am I not able to highlight a line and then click on the format link like bold, italic, underline, but must spell out the format code character by character. ]

It's because Odin is punishing you.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Posted by yrreg
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.

And you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81satr%C3%BA

ETA: http://www.asatru.org/

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.

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.


Congratulations!


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



Yrreg

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is why the more I examine atheists and their contorted abuse of reason and intelligence, I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that atheists are not being rational and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irrational and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.

No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of God, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.

See? If you be intelligent and reasonable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your reasoning faculty, you would conclude that it is more reasonable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of God, than to wilfully deny.

Yrreg

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but both your premise and conclusion are Yrregian.

I hope I haven't violated the membership agreement with this post.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

We already do that.

As we keep telling you, your God is not a special case. It's just one mythical deity out of many.

Just like Odin.

Quote:

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.

We have no "combative concentration on monotheists". We don't believe in anyone's gods.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

When followers of Asatru start claiming their faith is the only true faith and try to get governments to give it special treatment, I'll do just that.