You know god exists, you just don't like it.

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You know god exists, you just don't like it.

THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED IN A THREAD BY A THEIST VIA OUR ANONYMOUS POSTING.  IT DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED BUT WAS OFF TOPIC IN THE AREA POSTED.  HAVE AT IT...

 

How about an appeal to reason and common sense?  The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists or else how did we/it get here?  You have no answer for that.  Christianity does.  I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one.  Common sense and logic tells us this is the case.  I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind.  You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him. 

You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name.  You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God.  How ironic.   Allah does not exist.  That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him.   What for?  He doesn't exist.  Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others. 

I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the God of the Bible and not other "gods" is for the same reason.  You know He exists.  You just don't like it.  Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "gods".  But you don't.  It is almost exclusively attacks against Christianity and the God of the Bible.     


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:P. I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

It's so cute when they think they can formulate an argument too.

Do you wish to put your knowledge of logic up against mine? 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:You don't have

Ciarin wrote:

You don't have presentable evidence for your god, get over it.

Nothing to do with the existence of presentable evidence for God. 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. You

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You believe that of your God - He exists although he has no properties of existence.

2. You haven't given any so how do you know?

3. If you don't believe your God exists why are you arguing so hard for him?

1.  I never said that.

2.  I said "not necessarily".

3.  I never said that I do not believe that God exists. 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Do you wish to put

Quote:
Do you wish to put your knowledge of logic up against mine?

Any day of the week.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Ciarin

The God of Rock wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

You don't have presentable evidence for your god, get over it.

Nothing to do with the existence of presentable evidence for God. 

 

semantics. There is no presentable evidence for your god known to exist by the majority of the human race on this planet. Happy now?

 

You still can't prove your god exists, no one can. Any god that wishes to make himself known will provide his own clear explicit evidence. You need to deal with that and move on.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote: Kevin

The God of Rock wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

It's so cute when they think they can formulate an argument too.

Do you wish to put your knowledge of logic up against mine? 

Is your knowledge of logic as great as your skill at dodging arguments?


The God of Rock wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

You don't have presentable evidence for your god, get over it.

Nothing to do with the existence of presentable evidence for God. 

Oh come on. If you know of any evidence, present it. If not, admit it and let's be done with it.

There's no use in presuming there may be evidence out there somewhere.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:Do

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Do you wish to put your knowledge of logic up against mine?

Any day of the week.

Okay, let's start off with some basics:

1.)  What is the probability of a tautology?

2.)  What is the probability of a contradiction?

3.) What conditions must an antilogism meet in order for a syllogism to be valid?

4.) What is DeMorgan's Theorem?

5.) Define Mill's Method of Agreement.

6.) Name one rule which restricts Rule EI from being applied.

7.) If I inferred "P OR Q" from "P", would I be making a valid inference?

8.) What is the difference between a conditional proof and an indirect proof?

9.) What is the implication of "If P, then Q"?

10.) In a valid syllogism, a middle must be distributed at least how many times?

 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:semantics.

Ciarin wrote:

semantics. There is no presentable evidence for your god known to exist by the majority of the human race on this planet. Happy now?

What do you mean "your god"?  First of all, if it is strictly my god, then how would you know what evidence does or does not exist for it?  If, by your own admission, it is my God, then clearly I am the one who defines it.  Perhaps my God is Bruce Springsteen, and I can prove to you that he exists.

Otherwise, all you've done is stated an unsupported sociological statement about human beings.  And... ?

 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Is your

JillSwift wrote:

Is your knowledge of logic as great as your skill at dodging arguments?

Are you referring to your disconcerted effort to change the subject when you realized that you were stating things that were simply not true?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Ciarin

The God of Rock wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

semantics. There is no presentable evidence for your god known to exist by the majority of the human race on this planet. Happy now?

What do you mean "your god"?

I mean the one you believe in.

 

 

Quote:
First of all, if it is strictly my god, then how would you know what evidence does or does not exist for it?

Because if there were actual evidence for your god then everyone would be acknowledging it's existence instead of debating it or relying on faith.

Quote:

  If, by your own admission, it is my God,

That would be your own admission.

Quote:

then clearly I am the one who defines it.  Perhaps my God is Bruce Springsteen, and I can prove to you that he exists.

You would still have to provide evidence that the boss is a god, which you don't have.

 

Quote:

Otherwise, all you've done is stated an unsupported sociological statement about human beings.  And... ?

 

All I've done is make you face reality. No evidence for your god. Get over it.


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I mean the one

Ciarin wrote:

I mean the one you believe in.

But you do not know what I believe in.

Quote:
Because if there were actual evidence for your god then everyone would be acknowledging it's existence instead of debating it or relying on faith.

You make constant assertions about "evidence", and yet the "evidence" that you cite for the existence of evidence is actually insufficient.

Just because people do not agree on an issue does not mean that there is no evidence for it, anymore than total agreement means that the evidence is sufficient or total disagreement means that the evidence is insufficient.

Quote:

That would be your own admission.

You are the one who said that it was my God. 

Quote:
You would still have to provide evidence that the boss is a god, which you don't have.

A god?  Make up your mind.  Is God a genus or a proper noun?

 

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Ciarin

The God of Rock wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

I mean the one you believe in.

But you do not know what I believe in.

 

but it doesn't matter.

 

Quote:
You make constant assertions about "evidence", and yet the "evidence" that you cite for the existence of evidence is actually insufficient.

This thread is about evidence. So put up or shut up. If you have evidence present it. You can't say there might be some evidence somewhere and expect that'll work to prove your god's existence.

Quote:

Just because people do not agree on an issue does not mean that there is no evidence for it, anymore than total agreement means that the evidence is sufficient or total disagreement means that the evidence is insufficient.

 

You. Have. No. Evidence. To present. To us. To prove your god's existence. NONE.

Quote:


You are the one who said that it was my God.

Which other god would it be?

 

Quote:

Quote:
You would still have to provide evidence that the boss is a god, which you don't have.

A god?  Make up your mind.  Is God a genus or a proper noun?

 

It depends on the context but it's just a noun for this discussion. I've never said God, or The God. I've only said a god, or your god.

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Okay, let's start off

Quote:
Okay, let's start off with some basics:

I have something of an up-front objection - 'let's start with' suggests that this exchange is going to be extended further on. Frankly, I'll answer these initial 10 questions, but I'm not having this thread derail into a typical Christian deflection.

I answer these question, then you go back and address the argument I gave, and we don't keep going down this road (or we do it in another thread), capiche?

Quote:
1.)  What is the probability of a tautology?

Well, first, perhaps we should first establish what 'tautology' means. A tautology is any proposal that is true irregardless of the valuation of it's variables.

Example tautological statement: We'll get there when we get there.

 

The way your question is worded is, frankly, odd. It's like asking, 'What's the probability of a photon?' If what you meant to ask was, 'What is the probability of any tautology being true?', the answer is 100 percent.

I suspect that you're simply trying to play a weasly word game, but we'll see.

Quote:
2.)  What is the probability of a contradiction?

A contradiction is the opposite of a tautology; it's a statement that is never true.

Example contradictory statement: I know God exists; he's just outside of our knowledge.

 

Again, your question is worded awkwardly, but the probability of a contradictory statement being true is always zero.

Quote:
3.) What conditions must an antilogism meet in order for a syllogism to be valid?

Well, a syllogism is an argument where a conclusion is reached based on two premises.

Example:

P1: Pop cans are made of alluminum

P2: I'm drinking from a pop can.

C: Therefore, I'm drinking out of an alluminun can.

You're being a real fucking weasel bringing-in the term 'Antilogism', presumably because you're aware that it is a term no longer in contemporary use (apparently what passes as a victory to creationists these days is bringing-up ancient terminology that only those whom have recently had a linguist course - which, as chance has it, I just did - would recognize). An Antilogism, in any case, is a logical argument containing three premises where one premise is contradicted by the other two (I believe it also must be the third premise which is contradicted in order for it to be formally known as an Antilogism. Silly Greeks).

Example:

P1: There is only one true God

P2: God is the single greatest being existent

P3: God is a Trinity composed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

 

...I suppose, thereby, that you didn't really go the trouble of figuring-out what either syllogisms or antilogisms were, because antilogisms are not any part of syllogisms (as they would have to be in order for your question to be sensible); they're an entirely seperate form of an argument.

Quote:
4.) What is DeMorgan's Theorem?

*Facepalms*

DeMorgan's Theorem was derived by the mathematician Augustus De Morgan, and are rules used in formal logic (a.k.a. algebraic mathematics), rather than rhetorical logic.

So you apparently have your fields of study somwhat mixed-up, since we suddenly went from argument composition to rules that have their largest application in engineering.

Quote:
5.) Define Mill's Method of Agreement.

Mill's Methods (I presume this is what you're referring to?) are a set of five inductive standards established by John Stuart Mill (a philosopher) in the fucking 1800s.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you know anything at all about philosophy/logic inside of, say, as much as 10 decades recent?

 

 

Okay, y'know what? I've changed my mind. I'm not going to answer your ten 'starting-off' questions, as it's now blatantly obvious that:

A) You aren't at all qualified to be the one asking said questions

B) The intent of said question is to academically masturbate over minutae, rather than actually establish that I might know something about contemporary logic/philosophy.

I should state up front that I do not have any sort of formal philosophical education, and most of my answers stem from my recent accreditation in a somewhat-unrelated field (teaching English), so I might be off on the details. In either case, you clearly don't know how to critically examine your surroundings, or you wouldn't be a creationist.

 

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
aw man, I hate it when

aw man, I hate it when people use "irregardless".


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Kevin

The God of Rock wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Do you wish to put your knowledge of logic up against mine?

Any day of the week.

Okay, let's start off with some basics:

1.)  What is the probability of a tautology?

2.)  What is the probability of a contradiction?

3.) What conditions must an antilogism meet in order for a syllogism to be valid?

4.) What is DeMorgan's Theorem?

5.) Define Mill's Method of Agreement.

6.) Name one rule which restricts Rule EI from being applied.

7.) If I inferred "P OR Q" from "P", would I be making a valid inference?

8.) What is the difference between a conditional proof and an indirect proof?

9.) What is the implication of "If P, then Q"?

10.) In a valid syllogism, a middle must be distributed at least how many times?

Speaking of logic... how exactly would you prove that Kevin holds less knowledge of logic than you when all of these questions can be answered via a google search?  That certainly doesn't seem very logical.  In fact it seems like a precursor to "I know something you don't know, nanny nanny poo poo."  Instead of offering a test of logic knowledge, maybe you should instead apply that logic while debating the existence of god?  It just seems a little more logical that way. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Speaking of logic...

Quote:
Speaking of logic... how exactly would you prove that Kevin holds less knowledge of logic than you when all of these questions can be answered via a google search?

...Or a quick browse-through of Wikipedia.

I was going to just denounce the whole affair on these grounds alone, but thought that this would be a bit of a cop-out.

 

Besides, it was fun to expose several of the questions as being directly demonstrative that the person posing them didn't know what the Hell they were talking about. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Is your knowledge of logic as great as your skill at dodging arguments?
Are you referring to your disconcerted effort to change the subject when you realized that you were stating things that were simply not true?
Since you have ignored the really important question, I'll take that as a "yes".


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:THE EXISTENCE OF THIS

Quote:

THE EXISTENCE OF THIS UNIVERSE IS PROOF THAT A CREATOR (GOD) EXISTS.   THAT IS THE PROOF. THIS UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT A CREATOR.  THE UNIVERSE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.  TO BELIEVE THIS IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.  GOD IS SPIRIT. HE IS NOT ABLE TO BE TESTED FOR IN A SCIENCE LAB. THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE DOESN'T EXIST.  IF ONLY THINGS THAT CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY EXIST THEN PLEASE SHOW ME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR YOUR LOVE OF YOUR SPOUSE OR MOTHER OR FATHER.  SHOW ME EXPERIMENTS THAT CAN PROVIDE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR LOVE FOR ANYONE. REPRODUCE YOUR LOVE IN A TEST TUBE.  SHOW ME PHYSICAL PROOF. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?  DOES IT HAVE MASS OR VOLUME?  WHAT ARE ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES?  IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE THIS THEN YOUR LOVE FOR MOTHER, FATHER, SPOUSE, OR WHOEVER DOES NOT EXIST

 

Hi Doc

 

Since you see fit to capitalize this entire passage (at least a welcome variation on the theist's usual practice of capitalizing  random words) I'll assume that you consider this the essence of your point. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if it is supposed to be a definitive and unassailable assertion underlying your views then you have, as far as I can see, simply highlighted the point where your desire to place belief in a deity has obstructed your intelligence.

 

Existence of the universe in no way "proves" that a deity exists. It doesn't even give rise to suspicion that a deity exists. In fact it bears no relevance whatsoever on the matter. There is nothing related to the universe's existence that either a priori or a posteriori supports your proposition that there is a god which you haven't wilfully placed there without evidence. If we were discussing anything else you would readily admit that your proposition is therefore indistinguishable from an ignorant guess. But, as with other theists, this would be dangerously close to admitting the real possibility of error so you do exactly what the rest of the theists do - you follow up an ignorant assertion with further assertions couched in causal terms but which, in reality, are only a smokescreen to deflect attention away from the paucity of intelligence in the original assertion.

 

Let's check out yours, for example.

 

Your next assertion is that the universe cannot exist without a creator. This doesn't even have the saving grace of appealing to reason in its baldly dogmatic assertiveness and dismisses completely the knowledge that we do have of the nature of the universe. You claim to have studied physics at university level. Kudos to you for that. But shame on you then for seemingly forgetting that quantum physics concerns itself quite specifically with the opposite contention and provides many different logical, if complicated, and eminently feasible means whereby the universe can - indeed does - exist "without a creator". The notion that something can only be if it is the result of a wilful action is a quaintly archaic human one and one that has no place in scientific study. As a result science has long ago outstripped both in imagination and the ability to back up its findings the theistic stance, which as time goes by is appearing not only more ludicrous, but a wilful retreat into absolute ignorance undertaken simply to avoid admitting that one has made a profound error.

 

You then say "to believe [the universe created itself] is illogical and irrational". Well if by "created itself" you are allowing for the real possibility that the universe extends well beyond its material components as presently expressed and as humanly conceived up to now, then even you should readily see that it is neither illogical nor irrational to "believe" just such a proposition. However again science has outstripped your theistically confined parameters and the presumptions they have forced you to employ. Two words in your assertion betray your narrow-mindedness and inability to keep pace with current scientifically adduced knowledge on the subject. "Belief" when applied in a scientific sense is a much sturdier concept than the blind, misinformed version beloved of theists. It demands proof and is not the purpose of the exercise in any case. A rational person believes in the veracity of a proposition only after it has been tested and proved and then uses it as the basis for further investigation on the same terms. The other word you have semantically strangled is "create", which to the theist must mean wilfully create but to the rest of us means simply "make", even if the proposition is that something was "made" from "nothing" (your bucket analogy earlier betrays the fact that you really didn't get my point about "nothing" at all, which surpises me of a physics student at the level you claimed you learnt your subject).

 

From this point on, having by now made at least three groundless assertions to deflect from your initially silly one, you then excel yourself in irrelevancies. The sentence "IF ONLY THINGS THAT CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY EXIST THEN PLEASE SHOW ME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR YOUR LOVE OF YOUR SPOUSE OR MOTHER OR FATHER.  SHOW ME EXPERIMENTS THAT CAN PROVIDE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR LOVE FOR ANYONE" doesn't even look clever at first glance and is simply derisibly stupid when examined. What on earth has the existence of an emotional interaction between human beings to do with validating or invalidating the principle of scientific study governing testing for "things" anyway? While we might semantically discuss emotions using broad applications of definite nouns this does not give them a physical substance, but it does acknowledge that we distinguish our feelings from each other and can empathically recognise similar feelings in others. Leaving aside the point that emotional bonds between family members or others can indeed be scientifically studied to a significant degree, you fail completely to illustrate the relevance of the subject having introduced it. "Love", a subjectively difficult term to quantify, can nevertheless be said with some accuracy to be an emotion which is notoriously often directed to non-animate and otherwise quite inhuman targets. The child can "love" its teddybear. The sports fan can "love" his team. The adolescent girl can "love" the boy-band member. The stalker can "love" his prey. These things are also observable, are to some degree quantifiable, and are eminently predictable as occurrences, all in ways which fit the definition of "physical" evidence. But such observation and study tends to highlight the inadequacy of the semantic applicatiojn of the term "love", to the point of raising serious questions regarding its existence as a definite entity even within terms of human emotion. Do you really want god to disappear from language for the same reasons? I doubt it - yet you see fit to draw a direct correlation between the two.

 

Your final assertion defies logic. It basically says that if one cannot provide physical evidence for a subjective feeling then the subjective feeling doesn't "exist". Not as a physical entity, no. Of course not. But it is evidential, and physical evidence can be brought to bear on its function and expression.

 

Of course you could be implying that god is simply a human emotion, but I doubt it - even though it actually contains a smidgin more sense (in that emotions at least are something we understand) than calling it a "spirit". Which you did.

 

So there you have it. The essence of your viewpoint turns out to be a string of silly assertions, inaccurate language, misconceptions and, ultimately, irrelevancies. What a waste of brain cells.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:2. He already

Sapient wrote:

2. He already has.  You have as well, you have bet on the afterlife so much so that you're willing to waste the only life we have proof of in order to attain it.  Not a wise move from an evidential standpoint.



Mod Edit: *Sigh*

Some people just can't help but stick their heads into the lion's maw...

 - Kevin R Brown

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Would

The God of Rock wrote:
(edited out the ad-hom attack.)

And he trots in the old favorite: Ad Hominem!

 

Also known as "I've got nothing! I'll just call you a doodie-head!"

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

Sapient wrote:

2. He already has.  You have as well, you have bet on the afterlife so much so that you're willing to waste the only life we have proof of in order to attain it.  Not a wise move from an evidential standpoint.



Mod Edit: *Sigh*

Some people just can't help but stick their heads into the lion's maw...

 - Kevin R Brown

 

 

Awww, you're no fun.

I'll respond to your post later.  I have to go to work right now.

There is just SO MUCH to say.  LOL


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

Sapient wrote:

2. He already has.  You have as well, you have bet on the afterlife so much so that you're willing to waste the only life we have proof of in order to attain it.  Not a wise move from an evidential standpoint.



Mod Edit: *Sigh*

Some people just can't help but stick their heads into the lion's maw...

 - Kevin R Brown

 

I believe your original post was....

The God of Rock wrote:

Mr. [insert real name here, avoiding the name Sapient],

 

Would you say that living life to the fullest means that we ought to stay unemployed and mooch off of our girlfriend for the purpose of financing a website which generates no profit whatsoever?

Would you say that the task of "saving" people from the supposed oppression of religion is more important than paying child support?

Just curious.

I was beginning to think you were slightly above par for the course and then you hit with the completely unrelated and not to mention innacurate.  But since we're on the topic, do you think that living life to the fullest means we ought to put outspoken members of societies lives at risk by using their real name whenever possible?  Do you think living life to the fullest means putting the lives of that persons family at risk because you aren't willing to make a valid or coherent argument in it's place? 

Now for what it's worth, I have a full time job outside of RRS, which on average loses $8,000 per year staying in operation.  And I will continue to work and live as frugally as possible so that this site can survive for the rest of my life.  In doing so I do hope to push back religions impact and stranglehold on society.  I do not think that doing so however is "living life to the fullest" in fact if anything I think managing and paying for this site is the exact opposite of living life to the fullest.  However this site and it's benefit to society along with the impact it will likely have are incredibly rewarding and always seem to fill a void in the "living life to the fullest" department.  Living life to the fullest wouldn't include this site, the money spent here would be spent on luxuries and entertainment and more outside experiences like skydiving or weekend trips to the beach (all things that I avoid so that my money can go to a much more important cause).  

Oh, and yes I do think that "saving" people from the oppression of religion is more important than paying child support, as long as your taking care of your son about half of the time and contributing half of the expenses, and have a mutual agreement with his mother, I see no need to simply hand over the money when I am perfectly capable of doling out to his benefit myself. 

Any other inane questions, dickhead?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Why does it still surprise

Why does it still surprise me when Christians come here and act like Christians?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Any other

Sapient wrote:

Any other inane questions, dickhead?

Yes, actually.

(1) What is your job?  Are you still selling cell phones?

(2) What is your college degree in?

(3) Would you ever have a public debate with someone credible, or are you just going to stick with people like Firefly and Ray Comfort?

(4) In relation to your belief that religious people are mentally ill, couldn't you say the same thing about someone who actually believes that his or her website is actually going to change the world?  If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you say that the other person is having delusions of grandeur?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Yes,

The God of Rock wrote:
Yes, actually.

(1) What is your job?  Are you still selling cell phones?

(2) What is your college degree in?

(3) Would you ever have a public debate with someone credible, or are you just going to stick with people like Firefly and Ray Comfort?

(4) In relation to your belief that religious people are mentally ill, couldn't you say the same thing about someone who actually believes that his or her website is actually going to change the world?  If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you say that the other person is having delusions of grandeur?

Still showing off your argument dodging mojo, kid?


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
My god exists!

I have lots and lots of evidence about my god.  Every time the sun sets that evidence for my god.  Every time an angel gets its wings that evidence that a bell rang some were, and also evidence for my god.  Your problem is you have not defined my god correctly.  If you don't know who my god is how can you know I don't have evidence.  For all you know my god is my keyboard so this very message is evidence.  Lots of people accept that there is evidence for god, and sense I also believe in god there evidence is my evidence.  You just aren't looking at thing in the right way.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes, actually.(1) What

Quote:

Yes, actually.

(1) What is your job?  Are you still selling cell phones?

(2) What is your college degree in?

(3) Would you ever have a public debate with someone credible, or are you just going to stick with people like Firefly and Ray Comfort?

(4) In relation to your belief that religious people are mentally ill, couldn't you say the same thing about someone who actually believes that his or her website is actually going to change the world?  If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you say that the other person is having delusions of grandeur?

You and your chums are obsessed. Your entire world revolves around the ideation of this forum constituting a 'cult' of some form, with Brian the malicious headmaster virulently sucking vast sums of wealth from some unknown dupes.

Were the RRS members to tire of this effort tomorrow and these forums vanished, goodness knows that you'd be left with such a void in your 'life' that your own community would implode.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:I have

True believer wrote:

I have lots and lots of evidence about my god.  Every time the sun sets that evidence for my god.  Every time an angel gets its wings that evidence that a bell rang some were, and also evidence for my god.  Your problem is you have not defined my god correctly.  If you don't know who my god is how can you know I don't have evidence.  For all you know my god is my keyboard so this very message is evidence.  Lots of people accept that there is evidence for god, and sense I also believe in god there evidence is my evidence.  You just aren't looking at thing in the right way.

Ugh!
Alright, coherently define your god for us so that we know what your god is.  After that you can show us how the setting of the Sun is evidence for it and you can show us your evidence that angels exist and explain how you know an angel has gotten its wings is evidence for the ringing of a bell somewhere and then you can explain how that too is evidence of your god.

Actually, don't.  I'm not sure I could read your next post.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:I have

True believer wrote:

I have lots and lots of evidence about my god.  Every time the sun sets that evidence for my god.  Every time an angel gets its wings that evidence that a bell rang some were, and also evidence for my god.  Your problem is you have not defined my god correctly.  If you don't know who my god is how can you know I don't have evidence.  For all you know my god is my keyboard so this very message is evidence.  Lots of people accept that there is evidence for god, and sense I also believe in god there evidence is my evidence.  You just aren't looking at thing in the right way.

 

Here's a good question: How exactly should one look at it? 


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:True believer

Thomathy wrote:

True believer wrote:

I have lots and lots of evidence about my god.  Every time the sun sets that evidence for my god.  Every time an angel gets its wings that evidence that a bell rang some were, and also evidence for my god.  Your problem is you have not defined my god correctly.  If you don't know who my god is how can you know I don't have evidence.  For all you know my god is my keyboard so this very message is evidence.  Lots of people accept that there is evidence for god, and sense I also believe in god there evidence is my evidence.  You just aren't looking at thing in the right way.

Ugh!
Alright, coherently define your god for us so that we know what your god is.  After that you can show us how the setting of the Sun is evidence for it and you can show us your evidence that angels exist and explain how you know an angel has gotten its wings is evidence for the ringing of a bell somewhere and then you can explain how that too is evidence of your god.

Actually, don't.  I'm not sure I could read your next post.

My God doesn't need me to define him, he defines himself.  If you don't know who he is then your just not looking hard enough.  My God is all around us, if you truly look at the things around you then he will make himself know to you.  The other day someone I didn't even know said something nice to me.  Why would they say something nice to me if they didn't even know me?  The answer is obviously God.  God must think I have a nice shirt!  Look at nature. Nature is beautiful.  Why would nature be beautiful if god didn't make it so.  If you look at thing the right way you can find God in anything.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:My God

True believer wrote:
My God doesn't need me to define him, he defines himself.  If you don't know who he is then your just not looking hard enough.  My God is all around us, if you truly look at the things around you then he will make himself know to you.  The other day someone I didn't even know said something nice to me.  Why would they say something nice to me if they didn't even know me?  The answer is obviously God.  God must think I have a nice shirt!  Look at nature. Nature is beautiful.  Why would nature be beautiful if god didn't make it so.  If you look at thing the right way you can find God in anything.
Poe-tastic!

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:My God

True believer wrote:
My God doesn't need me to define him, he defines himself.  If you don't know who he is then your just not looking hard enough.  My God is all around us, if you truly look at the things around you then he will make himself know to you.  The other day someone I didn't even know said something nice to me.  Why would they say something nice to me if they didn't even know me?  The answer is obviously God.  God must think I have a nice shirt!  Look at nature. Nature is beautiful.  Why would nature be beautiful if god didn't make it so.  If you look at thing the right way you can find God in anything.
Someone call the PoePoe! (Unless I really am mistaken.)


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
wut she said.

wut she said.

Sticking out tongue


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:I have

True believer wrote:

I have lots and lots of evidence about my god.  Every time the sun sets that evidence for my god.  Every time an angel gets its wings that evidence that a bell rang some were, and also evidence for my god.  Your problem is you have not defined my god correctly.  If you don't know who my god is how can you know I don't have evidence.  For all you know my god is my keyboard so this very message is evidence.  Lots of people accept that there is evidence for god, and sense I also believe in god there evidence is my evidence.  You just aren't looking at thing in the right way.

 

I lol'd.


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Doc wrote:aiia

Sapient wrote:

Doc wrote:

aiia wrote:

 So my bet is on biological morality

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

1. You mean afterlife, and yes that was the point.

2. He already has.  You have as well, you have bet on the afterlife so much so that you're willing to waste the only life we have proof of in order to attain it.  Not a wise move from an evidential standpoint.

 

1.  Life, afterlife pretty much one and the same.  Probably better word to use is soul.

2.  I am not wasting my life because I value my life enough to seek the truth.  A waste would be if I live my entire life only to reach the "end" and realize that there is more and it is really only the beginning but I can't partake in it.  That would be a waste. 

And as far as being wise is concerned, the Bible says that the wise seek after God but the fool says in his heart "There is no God".  Who is wise and who is the fool?  If you are right and there is no God, when we both die we will both rot and ceast to exist and neither of us will have any recollection of how we "wasted" or spent our only life.  But if I am right and the biblical God does exist I will, by God's grace, spend eternity in Heaven and you, because of your sins, will spend eternity in Hell.  It seems that according to your scenario I have nothing to lose, but according to my scenario you have evrything to lose.         

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I have lots and lots

Quote:

I have lots and lots of evidence about my god.  Every time the sun sets that evidence for my god.  Every time an angel gets its wings that evidence that a bell rang some were, and also evidence for my god.  Your problem is you have not defined my god correctly.  If you don't know who my god is how can you know I don't have evidence.  For all you know my god is my keyboard so this very message is evidence.  Lots of people accept that there is evidence for god, and sense I also believe in god there evidence is my evidence.  You just aren't looking at thing in the right way.

 

Bits of this don't even make grammatical sense. All of it is nonsensical in essence. The sentiment expressed depends on a definition of "evidence" which would be laughed rightly out of any court of law and, if used in any document where veracity of language is deemed a minimal requirement could even, in certain circumstances, possibly result in the author being psychiatrically assessed. If the assertions contained in it are the "right way" to "look at things" in order to believe in a deity (even of the keyboard variety) then it explains a lot about the nature of the delusion. Obviously respect for intelligence is its first casualty and, since proof and evidence are its subject, the above quote provides a good measure of both that this supposition is well-founded.

 

The only difference between this nonsense quoted above and more grammatically correct defences of blind faith (rare as they are) is that the stupidity involved is more apparent. The inabilities advertised by the author's failure to communicate rationally are simply an unfortunate aspect to the one inability that all theists share - that of being unable to respect the importance of rationality generally and, when it suits them, treating intelligent reason with contempt.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
t

Doc wrote:

And as far as being wise is concerned, the Bible says that the wise seek after God but the fool says in his heart "There is no God".  Who is wise and who is the fool?

Well, seeing as the Bible offers no argument to support that statement, it is just a random insult thrown about by condescending fundies. Just because something is written doesn't make it factual.

Doc wrote:

If you are right and there is no God, when we both die we will both rot and ceast to exist and neither of us will have any recollection of how we "wasted" or spent our only life.  But if I am right and the biblical God does exist I will, by God's grace, spend eternity in Heaven and you, because of your sins, will spend eternity in Hell.  It seems that according to your scenario I have nothing to lose, but according to my scenario you have evrything to lose.         

Ahhh, Pascla's Wager, better titled Pascal's Fallacy. The problem is that Pascal was a myopic, delusional idiot. Like most condescending fundies, Pascal assumed only one god, his own. But what if Ahura Mazda is the One True God? You and I are both fucked. What if Zeus is the One True God? Thor? Baal Hadad? Osiris? Hell, what if Yahweh really is the One True God, but our interpretaton of scripture is all wrong?

Sorry buddy, but the only reasonable approach to Pascal's Fallacy is to pay lip service to every single god ever claimed to have existed.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:1.  Life,

Doc wrote:
1.  Life, afterlife pretty much one and the same.  Probably better word to use is soul.
Unlikely.  See: atheist.

Quote:
2.  I am not wasting my life because I value my life enough to seek the truth.  A waste would be if I live my entire life only to reach the "end" and realize that there is more and it is really only the beginning but I can't partake in it.  That would be a waste.
Oh my, spin out the Wager...

Quote:
And as far as being wise is concerned, the Bible says that the wise seek after God but the fool says in his heart "There is no God".  Who is wise and who is the fool?  If you are right and there is no God, when we both die we will both rot and ceast to exist and neither of us will have any recollection of how we "wasted" or spent our only life.  But if I am right and the biblical God does exist I will, by God's grace, spend eternity in Heaven and you, because of your sins, will spend eternity in Hell.  It seems that according to your scenario I have nothing to lose, but according to my scenario you have evrything to lose.
There is no logical reason to presume that your scenario would be more likely.  In fact, considering the infinite possible god-concepts or even those embodied in extant religions, the likihood of your scenario (ending up in heaven) becomes vanishingly small.  Or, perhaps you weren't aware of the glaring faults in Pascal's Wager?

Desdenova wrote:
Sorry buddy, but the only reasonable approach to Pascal's Fallacy is to pay lip service to every single god ever claimed to have existed.
That's not actually reasonable.  Perhaps the true god requires actual 'monotheistic' belief?  The best bet to hedge is that you are fucked, so make this life the most 'fulfilling' or whatever.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Any other inane questions, dickhead?

Yes, actually.

(1) What is your job?  Are you still selling cell phones?

My job is none of your business and has no relevance to this thread or the discussion in which this site is designed for.  Some kids on a hate site that you might frequent claim I work the drive-thru at McDonalds, maybe you should go with that. 

Since you are obviously cool with questions and chose to use my real name, what is your real name? 

 

Quote:
(2) What is your college degree in?

I don't have a college degree, but you know that already.  What is your degree in, and what line of work are you in now?

 

Quote:
(3) Would you ever have a public debate with someone credible, or are you just going to stick with people like Firefly and Ray Comfort?

Of course, however since you know logic so well you should know well that such a debate could never occur with a theist on the topic of religion.  There are no credible arguments for theism.  I'd debate a credible motorola expert on the advantages of nokia over motorola, as long as I got some sort of appearance fee for the time.

Would you publicly debate someone credible on religion?  Have you ever?  Have you ever had a public debate about god?

 

Quote:
(4) In relation to your belief that religious people are mentally ill, couldn't you say the same thing about someone who actually believes that his or her website is actually going to change the world?  If the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn't you say that the other person is having delusions of grandeur?

If the belief was delusional it could certainly lend credence to any number of mental deficiencies.  With that said, and your supposed knowledge of logic, you'd know well that even a little change is a change in the world.  Since I can provide evidence for small changes and forward progress we could reasonably state that someone who denied that this site is changing the world with evidence to the contrary is in fact delusional.

Here is your evidence, should you choose to not read it and then further claim that this site is not changing the world at all, it will be very clear what you are (if your Christian belief system didn't already make it clear enough).

 

Now it's time for my questions...

What is your real name? 

Do you have a website? 

If so what is the web address? 

 Where do you live? 

What's your phone number?  

What website did you use to attain the false information about me?  

Do you have any kids?  

What sort of care do you provide for any kids that you have? 

Are you married? 

Have you had premarital sex?  

How much money did you make last year? 

What do you do for a living? 

Are you still in school? 

What is your highest level of education? 

Are you aware that all of these questions have nothing to do with this thread? 

These questions also have nothing to do with our ability to argue the topic of religion, are you aware of that, or are you delusional about that? 

Do you actually think that the amount of child support I pay or the amount of money I spend on my child has some relevance to questioning whether your god exists? 

Is it simply your emotional reaction to being stumped and your inability to answer my questions along with others that you decided to revert to an immature and trollish style of argumentation? 

Can you answer all of these questions instead of just one or two? 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
So it comes down to Pascal's

So it comes down to Pascal's Wager and Ad Hominem. Again.

I hope some glimmer of understanding of why we don't believe has come of this. I guess I'm an optimist.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:1.  Life,

Doc wrote:

1.  Life, afterlife pretty much one and the same.  Probably better word to use is soul.

They're not exactly one and the same, considering we can easily prove life and nobody in the history of life has ever proven an afterlife.  With that said, if you had chosen the word soul I still would have questioned the existence of a soul much like the afterlife.  You'd have to prove the existence of a soul if you wanted any of us to care that we are wagering it.  Imagine if I asked you if you were willing to risk your flip-feep on there being a god.  Imagine if I told you that if you were wrong your flip-feep would burn forever and it would be torturous.  Might you at least want a little proof before you adopted my philosophy?

 

 

Quote:
2.  I am not wasting my life because I value my life enough to seek the truth.  A waste would be if I live my entire life only to reach the "end" and realize that there is more and it is really only the beginning but I can't partake in it.  That would be a waste. 

If you are right and there is no God, when we both die we will both rot and ceast to exist and neither of us will have any recollection of how we "wasted" or spent our only life.  But if I am right and the biblical God does exist I will, by God's grace, spend eternity in Heaven and you, because of your sins, will spend eternity in Hell.  It seems that according to your scenario I have nothing to lose, but according to my scenario you have evrything to lose.

The argument you are using is formally called "Pascals Wager" and if you are in pursuit of the truth in this life, maybe you should waste less time defending belief in your god and spend more time actually pursuing truth.  In this case you've wasted time arguing a point that has been exposed and picked apart many times on this site alone.  This is the point I was making about wasting the only life you get.

Here are some posts that you could have google searched the RRS site to find answers:

Refuting Pascals Wager by Massimo Pigliucci

Pascals Wager picked apart by a teen

How many non sequiturs can you count in Pascals Wager?

Why Pascals Wager sucks

 

I seperated this sentence you stated so I could address it outside of the wager...

Quote:
And as far as being wise is concerned, the Bible says that the wise seek after God but the fool says in his heart "There is no God".  Who is wise and who is the fool? 

While the bible does call atheists fools it also says that "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22

How do you reconcile the two statements?   It would seem both the writers of the bible and you are in danger of hellfire.

Additionally had you not been "wasting your time" pushing forward an unproven and untenable position you might have had time to pursue the truth that you claimed you were using this life for.  Doing so you would have found a google search of this site give you my response to your statement in advance.  Here is a thread in which the fool in the bible passage has been brought up already.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:(1) What is

Sapient wrote:

My job is none of your business and has no relevance to this thread or the discussion in which this site is designed for.

You would not be saying that if your job was not embarrassing.  I'll leave it at that.

Quote:
Since you are obviously cool with questions and chose to use my real name, what is your real name?

The real question is, if I did not already know yours and asked you that same question, would you actually be stupid enough to tell me? 

Quote:
I don't have a college degree, but you know that already.

Actually, I did not know that.  Interesting revelation. 

Do you even have a high school degree?

Quote:
Of course, however since you know logic so well you should know well that such a debate could never occur with a theist on the topic of religion.  There are no credible arguments for theism.

I'm serious.  Why don't you and your old lady challenge Dinesh D'Souza to a public debate?

Quote:
you'd know well that even a little change is a change in the world.

Certainly, we all change the world in some way.  I probably changed the world one hundred different times today just by getting up and walking around.  But such a change is so frivolous and trivial that it really is not even worth mentioning, much less losing $8,000 per year for.  But hey, if that gives you validation and makes you feel like your life is actually significant, then I won't take that away from you.

 

Quote:
Since I can provide evidence for small changes and forward progress

Are you talking about all of those teens that you got to take the Blasphemy Challenge through solicitation on teen websites?  That's not forward progress.  That's you taking advantage of children.

How many people have taken it so far?  Are you in triple digits yet?

Quote:
Now it's time for my questions...

What is your real name?

You do not even use your real name in public.  Who are you to ask me that?  LOL

Quote:
Do you have a website?

No.

Quote:
Where do you live?

Earth.

Quote:
What's your phone number? 

617 3375 1839

Quote:
What website did you use to attain the false information about me?

It was a revelation from God.

Quote:
Do you have any kids?

I have three.  One of them is named Tiernan.

Quote:
Are you married?

No.

Quote:
Have you had premarital sex?

Well I've had sex with people who are married.

Quote:
How much money did you make last year?

I get paid in meatballs.

Quote:
What do you do for a living?

Professional pimp.

Quote:
Are you still in school?

No.

Quote:
What is your highest level of education?

Hooked On Phonics.

Quote:
Are you aware that all of these questions have nothing to do with this thread?

You are the one who replied even after your minion Kevin removed the original post.  You clearly wanted to push the issue.

Quote:
Do you actually think that the amount of child support I pay or the amount of money I spend on my child has some relevance to questioning whether your god exists?

Maybe my god is the Department of Revenue.

 

 


pablotar
pablotar's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote: I have

True believer wrote:

I have lots and lots of evidence about my god.  Every time the sun sets that evidence for my god.  Every time an angel gets its wings that evidence that a bell rang some were, and also evidence for my god.  Your problem is you have not defined my god correctly.  If you don't know who my god is how can you know I don't have evidence.  For all you know my god is my keyboard so this very message is evidence.  Lots of people accept that there is evidence for god, and sense I also believe in god there evidence is my evidence.  You just aren't looking at thing in the right way.

I think this guy is making fun of god of rock(who incidentally smells like that chuck what's his face guy).

Theists who are somewhat "capable" of arguing their point know that the game is over when they actually have to define what their god actually is.

Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Well since you know logic so

The God of Rock,

Well since you know logic so well, you would know that since you have avoided answering honestly and you claim that avoided answers are avoided because they are embarrasing we can easily infer that your name is "Small Johnson," you don't have a website, you read the false info at encylopedia dramatica, you don't have kids of course because you've never had sex, you don't have a job, are still in middle school, your parents don't love you, and you are dumb enough to think that the unrelated questions prove the existence of god, and are soon to be banned from yet another website.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:<Lots

The God of Rock wrote:
<Lots of stupid shit>
Doesn't it embarrass you that this absurd and irrelevant line of crap is all you have?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The God of

Sapient wrote:

The God of Rock,

Well since you know logic so well, you would obviously know that since you have avoided answering honestly and you claim that avoided answers are avoided because they are embarrasing we can easily infer that your name is "Small Johnson," you don't have a website, you read the false info at encylopedia dramatica, you don't have kids of course because you've never had sex, you don't have a job, are still in middle school, your parents don't love you, and you are dumb enough to think that the unrelated questions prove the existence of god, and are soon to be banned from yet another website.

 

It's my turn.

Did you meet Kelly during cream-the-corn night at Bada-Bing's?

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:It's

The God of Rock wrote:

It's my turn.

Did you meet Kelly during cream-the-corn night at Bada-Bing's?

You are asking questions again?  Sure, right after you answer mine honestly. 

 

What is your real name? 

Do you have a website? 

If so what is the web address? 

 Where do you live? 

What's your phone number?  

What website did you use to attain the false information about me?  

Do you have any kids?  

What sort of care do you provide for any kids that you have? 

Are you married? 

Have you had premarital sex?  

How much money did you make last year? 

What do you do for a living? 

Are you still in school? 

What is your highest level of education? 

Are you aware that all of these questions have nothing to do with this thread? 

These questions also have nothing to do with our ability to argue the topic of religion, are you aware of that, or are you delusional about that? 

Do you actually think that the amount of child support I pay or the amount of money I spend on my child has some relevance to questioning whether your god exists? 

Is it simply your emotional reaction to being stumped and your inability to answer my questions along with others that you decided to revert to an immature and trollish style of argumentation? 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:You are asking

Sapient wrote:

You are asking questions again?  Sure, right after you answer mine honestly.

Nah.  I'd rather it just keep irking you that I already know the following about you and I did not even have to ask you:  (1) You are a bum with a high school education and a minimum wage job, (2) You are a horrible parent who puts a money losing website above his own child, (3) Your girlfriend was a former stripper, (4) You take advantage of children, (5) The world would have been better if Greydon beat you to death, and (6) I know who you really are.

You are a detestable human being and that's not even taking into account all of the atheism garbage.

Go ahead and ban me.  I can always create a different account.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:Nah. 

The God of Rock wrote:
Nah.  I'd rather it just keep irking you that I already know the following about you and I did not even have to ask you:  (1) You are a bum with a high school education and a minimum wage job, (2) You are a horrible parent who puts a money losing website above his own child, (3) Your girlfriend was a former stripper, (4) You take advantage of children, (5) The world would have been better if Greydon beat you to death, and (6) I know who you really are.

You are a detestable human being and that's not even taking into account all of the atheism garbage.

Go ahead and ban me.  I can always create a different account.

In other words, yes this is simply your emotional reaction to being stumped, and an inability to answer any of the questions put to you in this thread.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Spitefully stupid

Spitefully stupid people without scruples or shame - just another despicable part of Jesus's legacy, it seems. Poor fool must be rolling in his grave.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy