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

[yrreg]

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege, and you can join their exiguous adherents for whatever cultural and or political or racist agenda you have in mind.

And worship them; just remember your atheism is directed most dominantly toward the Abrahamic God.

You don't accept that? Well, read your masters: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Dennett.



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

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

But first what it is.



Yrreg

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege

We don't. We're using them to demonstrate a point. Some people follow gods of ancient North Europe, you follow a god of the ancient Middle East. You have just as much evidence as the Asatrans do for the existence of the gods you worship.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege, and you can join their exiguous adherents for whatever cultural and or political or racist agenda you have in mind.

We don't want to do anything of the sort. We don't believe in Odin any more than we believe in your God.

Quote:

And worship them; just remember your atheism is directed most dominantly toward the Abrahamic God.

Nope.

We don't believe in anyone's gods equally.

Quote:

You don't accept that? Well, read your masters

What "masters"?

Quote:

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Dennett.

I have. Have you? Have you actually read Hitchens?

Have you read the chapter in God is not Great describing how Hitchens himself came to be worshipped as a god?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

But first what it is.

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

Perhaps you should read it again the third time’s the charm.

Again you are confused; I was not trying to inform “readers here to the question:” most of them already know those definitions of evidence, although perhaps not in my own words. I was only trying to inform you of those definitions, in my own words as you requested, if you require something else then you need to be more specific but less leading in your questions.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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?

Sorry, but I can not accommodate you, unless you can specifically address what it is that I wrote before which you feel does not constitute the fundamental aspects of evidence. I should point out that I have worked in an engineering laboratory where collecting and presenting evidence was one of my (if not my only) functions.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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. ]

No problem, although if I thought “angry language” would have helped you resolve your technical difficulty, I assure you that I would have had no problem resorting to it, as long as it accomplished the task at hand.

Oh, and by the way, “Haha, gotcha”, I am not an atheist, although I am not one for group affiliations (the decoder rings just don’t seem to fit and I can never remember the secret handshakes) I would have to describe myself as an agnostic. Certainly I have no personal belief in Gods (which might make some classify me as an atheist) but I do not say that I do not believe in the existence of Gods (which would not classify me as an atheist). Certainly for some, Gods do exist and as far as Gods are concerned (from my limited understanding of them) that is all that they require for their existence (plus some worship if I am not mistaken). All I say is that I am not, myself, concerned with the existence or non-existence of any Gods one might choose to believe in or worship. Much the same way that I am not concerned with the current fashion trend or what the top song on the billboard chart might be, certainly these things might be of concern to some people, but just not to me. I am more concerned with what people do then what concerns them or what they choose to believe, although the latter two do still interest me, as it affects what people do.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege, and you can join their exiguous adherents for whatever cultural and or political or racist agenda you have in mind.

We don't want to do anything of the sort. We don't believe in Odin any more than we believe in your God.

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

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

[Fiona]

I think it is because of things he wants to do and does not want to feel guilty about: like staying sober .....

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by godless dave

Posted by yrreg
If you guys want to bring back those obsolete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege

We don't. We're using them to demonstrate a point. Some people follow gods of ancient North Europe, you follow a god of the ancient Middle East. You have just as much evidence as the Asatrans do for the existence of the gods you worship.

Well, if such a kind of irrelevant but comforting comparison subserves your self-reinforcement to continue to be blind to reason and intelligence, I will not begrudge you your consuelo de bobo.

You should now also go and preach to the adherents of the ancient restored Norsemen's gods, that their gods don't exist, and also to take their consolation from your notice to them that for you even the Christian God does not exist for you as also should be non-existent for them, even though your new president -- if you be American -- is going to swear to the Christian God that he is going to serve the US citizenry and keep sacrosanct the US Constitution, ending his oath of office with "So help me God."


No more, please, no more about Odin and associates, let's go to substantial stuffs.



Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Um, Yrreg, you are the one preaching not the atheists.

I like your my imaginary God is better than imaginary Odin, you do get the point so now you will wave your arms and avoid the discussion. One Imaginary God is just like a host of Imaginary Gods.

So why reject Odin and Kali but not the bloodsoaked sinai dust devil?

So are you a follower of the Ultimate reffered to by the misnomer AL or are you a follower of the demiurgos YHVH?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

No more, please, no more about Odin and associates, let's go to substantial stuffs.

Do you consider your god to be more "substantial" that Odin, or do you want to stop discussing him as well?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

We are asking for scientific evidence of the existence of your god. That means that the evidence must be empirical (dependent on evidence or consequences that can be observed with human senses) and repeatable.

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

[Safe-Keeper]

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.

I've heard this reasoning before. It's based on the assumption that things always evolve into something better - for example, we went from men carrying goods on their back to horse-drawn carriages to steam trains to diesel and electric trains. We went from galleys to men-o-war to battleships to today's highly advanced frigates. Taking this a step further, many argue that since monotheism is the latest of the religious ways to think about gods, it must therefore also be the best. Fallacious at best, of course.

Quote:

[ Thanks, The Man, for not resorting to angry language ]

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

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by yrreg

No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of God

Considering that no religion has been able to show any conclusive evidence of their god(s), it is clear that they have no knowledge of god(s) or that divine beings don't exist.

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.
That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.
If you were living in the time and clime of Odin's believers and you are one of them, you would also consider Odin to be more sophisticated than some god of some more primitive people like some illiterate tribe in black Africa.

Actually an argument can be made that the older pagan religions are the more sophisticated ones. In many ways the ME monotheistic religions are the Big Macs of religion.

Originally Posted by yrreg

You should now also go and preach to the adherents of the ancient restored Norsemen's gods

We don't need to, they are often very friendly people who don't force their believes onto others.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

[...]

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

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

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

But first what it is.

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

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

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

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.

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



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



Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Well, if such a kind of irrelevant but comforting comparison subserves your self-reinforcement to continue to be blind to reason and intelligence, I will not begrudge you your consuelo de bobo.

I'm not sure if you are genuinely incapable of perceiving the relevance of other gods in regard to your assertion that your god exists, or if you are being deliberately obtuse because you do understand the problem it raises.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

...and also to take their consolation from your notice to them that for you even the Christian God does not exist for you...

Why would they care? To them Jesus is no more real than Odin is to you. I'm amazed by the arrogance you display in assuming that even people of a completely different faith would somehow recognize your god as important, or even superior to their own.

Quote:

...even though your new president -- if you be American -- is going to swear to the Christian God that he is going to serve the US citizenry and keep sacrosanct the US Constitution, ending his oath of office with "So help me God."

Maybe, maybe not. Again, "so help me god" is not an official part of the oath of the president of the United States. The president is just as free to add "ya hey der!" or "what's fer lunch?" at the end of the oath. And there is no more justification to argue that "so help me god" is an oath to the Christian god than that it is an oath to a deistic or pantheistic god.

Quote:

No more, please, no more about Odin and associates, let's go to substantial stuffs.

Sorry, but you asked us about the sort of evidence that we are looking for. Well, we are asking you for any evidence that your god is any more genuine than any other. Why do you believe in your god but reject others?

[RoboTimbo]

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.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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




Yrreg

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

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

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

What about this new phenomenon of secular states with a welfare system (optional) and high level of atheism? You know, like the Nordic countries, Canada, and Japan? The ones that dominate the Human Development Index and Global Peace Index?

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

[The Man]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

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




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

Well, I’ll let you do that.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

But first what it is.



Yrreg

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

...how many kinds there are...

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

[Safe-Keeper]

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

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Mojo

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

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

Possibly:


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

or

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

[Hokulele]

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.

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

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.

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

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

Quote:

Congratulations!

Umm, thanks, I guess.

*Shrug*

Quote:

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

Now if you could only get somewhere in understanding paganism.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Nowhere in my posts have I ever expressed any interest in "converting" anyone to atheism.

You need not. The fundamentalist Christians assume that because fundamentalist Christianity is obsessive about converting people to their cause, every other religion as well as atheists must be, too. When you're out to get everyone, you inevitably develop the feeling they're out to get you, too.

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

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

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

Quote:

Posted by Foster Zygote


http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showt...71#post4189171

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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



Yrreg

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Dunstan]

yrreg, do you consider yourself a "combative Christian"?

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by The Man

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





Well, I’ll let you do that.




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



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

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

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.






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

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

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

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

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

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


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




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Did someone here say that I am using force to shove Foster Zygote, ex-Christian now combative atheist, to return to God?


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

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

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



Yrreg

[Third Eye Open]

Just for you, Yrreg http://songza.com/z/xoyw48

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Repeat bridge, chorus]

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

[Safe-Keeper]

Deyr fé,
deyja frændr,
deyr sjálfr et sama;
ek veit einn,
at aldri deyr:
dómr of dauðan hvern.
--Håvamål, Gestaþáttr, number 77

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

Or troll, depending.

[Silentknight]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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


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

What is evidence?

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

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

Quote:

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

I can't even begin to count all the ways that statement was stupid. Stalinist Russia practiced Communism as a religion, upheld a system of absolute morals based on Communism as the ultimate good that justifies all means to its end, and embraced the non-Darwinian idea of "proletarian evolution." It was ideological utopian thinking that motivated the worst atrocities in history. There was no overabundance of skepticism or critical thinking in Soviet Russia.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

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

You forgot the conditions: the picture has to be less than 50kb, and the manuscript less than 100 words, and the answer must be in by two days and given by you. Oh, and there are three hidden criteria I won't reveal until after you give the answer. Failure to meet all the criteria listed and not listed will automatically and instantly disqualify the evidence, disregarding its validity or rationality.

{/yrreg}

Quote:

I already did in my previous post.

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

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Considering that you yourself said that you were a Christian before, and you are now a combative atheist, who is forcing you now to believe in God?

Let's see...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

I suspect that you are, like most bigots, deficient in self esteem, leading you to need to assure yourself that you are better than others, even if those others are simply stereotypes that you construct with imaginary features chosen for their obvious inferiority to yourself.

Quote:

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

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

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

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

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

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

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

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

Yrreg

Excuse me Gerry, but I have addressed your request, and have seemingly been ignored.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

We are asking for scientific evidence of the existence of your god. That means that the evidence must be empirical (dependent on evidence or consequences that can be observed with human senses) and repeatable.

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

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

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

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

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

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

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

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

[Foster Zygote]

Since we're doing song lyrics:

Faithless - Rush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Well, if such a kind of irrelevant but comforting comparison subserves your self-reinforcement to continue to be blind to reason and intelligence, I will not begrudge you your consuelo de bobo.

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

[Safe-Keeper]

I've found that with fundies, if the analogy makes God look bad, ergo, it's invalid regardless of how much the two items actually have in common.

Quote:

And you still haven't answered why you reject Odin.

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

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I've found that with fundies, if the analogy makes God look bad, ergo, it's invalid regardless of how much the two items actually have in common.

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

Yrreg!!!


I AM YOUR GOD!

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I think it is because of things he wants to do and does not want to feel guilty about: like staying sober .....

Or having two eyes.

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

[Roboramma]

yyreg, please respond to this post:

Originally Posted by Mojo

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

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