Can you answer without the Ad hominem?

The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Can you answer without the Ad hominem?

FACT: There is NO Physical/Tangible "Evidence" that God exists.

Question: "How can you Disprove something that does not exist?"

 

Is not the argument of Atheist vs. Theist a moot point, since neither side  can produce evidence because the fact in question states that there is no argument? 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: FACT:

The Daily Way wrote:

FACT: There is NO Physical/Tangible "Evidence" that God exists.

If this is true, why believe? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: FACT:

The Daily Way wrote:

FACT: There is NO Physical/Tangible "Evidence" that God exists.

Question: "How can you Disprove something that does not exist?"

 

Is not the argument of Atheist vs. Theist a moot point, since neither side can produce evidence because the fact in question states that there is no argument?

Simple, how can you disprove that their isnt an invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter?

You are quick to deflect the burdon of proof on athesits, but fail to see the fallacy.

If I said, "Prove that Vishnu doesnt exist" would that make sense? No.

Wouldnt it be wise for you to say, "Ok, I hear your claim that Vishnu is real, what evidence do you have for such a claim?

I am not doing anthing logically diffrent by aiming that burdon of proof on you, the claimant in the same way that you'd be right in placing the burdon of proof on the Hindu if they made claims about Vishnu.

BTW, these are NOT ad homemins. It is a demonstration as to where your logic is flawed, nothing more.

Let me give you another example.

"I have a leprichan who makes kegs of beer for me for the Redskin games every sunday"

You, "Ok, I hear that claim, what evedence do you have for such claim"

Me, "Prove that I dont have a leprachan that does that."

Should you give up on questioning me because I made the attempt to shift the burdon on you to prove to me that I didnt have a leprichan?

Again, this is the fallacy you are commiting. Muslims and Jews do this too. It is nothing personal at all. I am merely demonstrating that the burdon falls on the claimant, not the questioner.

There is no good reason to believe that a "spirit" got a girl pregnant merely because you claim it, anymore than it would be valid by proxy of merely believing that I'd get 72 virgins, merely because I claim it. Any more than it would be wise for you to believe in my beer buddy, merely because I claim it.

 This a criticism of use of logic, do not equate it to a personal attack on you. I dont know you. Outside your religious claims I am quite sure that there are other issues where we might agree. But your religion isnt simply going to get a pass because my hard criticism makes you uncomforable. 

If humans never went outside their comfort zone we'd never learn. So insted of assuming these examples are personal attacks, try looking at the parallels in the examples given.

I apply the same burdon to all theistic claims, be they your religion, or sect just as I do any other. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: FACT:

The Daily Way wrote:

FACT: There is NO Physical/Tangible "Evidence" that God exists.

Question: "How can you Disprove something that does not exist?"

You can't. Try to disprove Russel's celestial teapot. It's not possible. This, however, is not sufficient reason to consider its existence to be a reasonable belief. An inablity to disprove somethings existence does not mean we should believe it exists as this would lead to us holding a belief in an infinite amount of unsupported existences. No one should need to disprove the teapot's existence as no one should believe in its existence in the first place.

If people do believe it exists though, what can be done is one can take the claims made about it and prove that they are contradictory, or whatever the case may be, and thus force the teapotists to either hide behind blind irrationality and cling to their belief in the teapot, or confront the flaws inherent in their belief.

 

Quote:
Is not the argument of Atheist vs. Theist a moot point, since neither side  can produce evidence because the fact in question states that there is no argument? 

In what other circumstance is someone required to show proof of the non-existence of something with no physical tangible ecidence?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


ranjef
ranjef's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
When has it become

When has it become necessary to disprove that which cannot be proven?

 


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: If this is

BGH wrote:

If this is true, why believe?

Because I choose to, just as the Atheist chooses not to...

Are not both the Atheist and Theist free to make choices?

Or is there a "double standard"?

If other Christians out there are beating Atheists over the head with a Bible to convert them, then those Christians are wrong. God "Elects", man has no say in who is a "Christian" and who is not.

If Atheists are beating Christians over the head with a Dawkins book, then those  Atheists are wrong. They are refusing to allow the "Freethinking" they revere so much.

Are not Christians as well as Atheists allowed the right to "Freethinking"? 

Or is there a "double standard"?


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote:

The Daily Way wrote:
BGH wrote:

If this is true, why believe?

Because I choose to, just as the Atheist chooses not to...

Are not both the Atheist and Theist free to make choices?

Or is there a "double standard"?

If other Christians out there are beating Atheists over the head with a Bible to convert them, then those Christians are wrong. God "Elects", man has no say in who is a "Christian" and who is not.

If Atheists are beating Christians over the head with a Dawkins book, then those Atheists are wrong. They are refusing to allow the "Freethinking" they revere so much.

Are not Christians as well as Atheists allowed the right to "Freethinking"?

Or is there a "double standard"?

 

huh? double standard?

I don't think you know what 'freethinking' means. Your question about double standards is ridiculous.

Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want. In fact, I always encourage "thinking" especially to xtians when it comes up.

But being a Xtian is totally opposite of what free thinking is. If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

And if one is a "free thinker" then one cannot be xtian. They are totally opposite ways of making conclusions and finding explainations.

I suggest you read up on "free thinking" before accussing us of "double standards". You will see how ridiculous your question is. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

 

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You are

Brian37 wrote:

You are quick to deflect the burdon of proof on athesits, but fail to see the fallacy.

I am not. This post was made to see if Theists" are allowed to think freely, and choose as Atheists are allowed to.

I want to see if the Atheist is willing to walk the freethinking walk, or just talk the freethinking talk. 

Brian37 wrote:
If I said, "Prove that Vishnu doesnt exist" would that make sense? No.

To you! But to me the point is irrelevant... The Vishnu believer, The Christian believer, and the Atheist has the ability to think and make their own desicions, and live with the results of those desicions. "Personal Resposibility" is what we lack in this society. We are too busy worrying about everyone else, and trying to control their lives. Is that what the Atheist Freethinking is built on? Control of the lives of others, and removing their freewill to choose, and replace it with yours?

If you want to believe or not believe, that is your choice, not mine. Your a big boy, think for yourself, and live with the repurcussions of your desicions. I do! I see it that way for all Humans. They all have the same right to choose, no matter what anyone thinks!

Brian37 wrote:
So insted of assuming these examples are personal attacks, try looking at the parallels in the examples given.

Never did assume such! Just asked if folks could answer without the Ad hominem, and you did! No accusations, no assumptions, just a question... 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: BGH

The Daily Way wrote:
BGH wrote:

If this is true, why believe?

Because I choose to, just as the Atheist chooses not to...

Are not both the Atheist and Theist free to make choices?

Or is there a "double standard"?

If other Christians out there are beating Atheists over the head with a Bible to convert them, then those Christians are wrong. God "Elects", man has no say in who is a "Christian" and who is not.

If Atheists are beating Christians over the head with a Dawkins book, then those Atheists are wrong. They are refusing to allow the "Freethinking" they revere so much.

Are not Christians as well as Atheists allowed the right to "Freethinking"?

Or is there a "double standard"?

The reason theres a difference is we are not the one making the extraordinary claim.  We don't have a belief.  You have a belief in something, but you can't prove or show any evidence of it (as far as tangible, lets avoid pointing to the creation concept at this point).  And I don't see any atheists preaching Dawkins in the way that Christians preach the bible.  We encourage everyone to read and learn everything they can.  Read Dawkins and the Bible (or if your afraid of bias, read the Bible first, either way).  There are people here who seem to think that we want to restrict things and thats not the case.   


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't think this has

I don't think this has anything to do with Darwin, as many theists (including the pope of the largest single denomination of Christianity) believe in evolution.

However, your point is moot for the previous reasons. The burden or proof is on you, and I feel that you have the right to believe in an Unvisible Pink Unicorn if you want to.

My objection comes when Christianization of America continues. The deluision of a theistic view affects me and the laws governing me, I have the right as a Freethinking citizen of the world to stand up against these delusions and say "enough."

Believe whatever you want, I don't care. Just stop placing mythology in with science and education and I'll be personally content with you holding onto irrational beliefs.

Thanks.

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: If people do

Vessel wrote:

If people do believe it exists though, what can be done is one can take the claims made about it and prove that they are contradictory, or whatever the case may be, and thus force the teapotists to either hide behind blind irrationality and cling to their belief in the teapot, or confront the flaws inherent in their belief.

So the Atheist does what He or She wants, and the Theist does what they are told? Again, where is the freewill, the freethinking, the right and ability to choose and live with that choice? 

Your non-belief is none of my business, why is my belief yours?

You use the words

Vessel wrote:
thus force the teapotists

Impose your will? Remove the teapotists right to think and choose? A double standard? Who is allowed to make choices out of freewill and freethinking, and who is not? Obviously not the teapotists, those poor souls are to be crushed under the heel of oppression of those that want to remove their right to think freely, and choose, and live with their choice!


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
ranjef wrote: When has it

ranjef wrote:

When has it become necessary to disprove that which cannot be proven?

 

And how has it become "Necessary"? Because those that oppose say so? The imposition of ones will upon another yet again? Humans have been doing that, are still doing it, and will continue to do it. When does the cycle break? When do ALL get to believe or not believe what they want? 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I find it ironic that asked

I find it ironic that you asked in the forum post if we can answer without the ad hominem, while you have written a blog that says this about Kelly and I...

Quote:

http://www.thedailyway.com/?p=166

Sapien offered nothing more than a cocky attitude, mingled with half truths, and outdated, irrelevant facts. He spent most of his time acting as if there was no need for a God, because he was god. His reliance on his pseudo-intellect, and his ability to to deceive the unsaved (He has no chance of converting the elect, ergo he is only gathering those already assigned to satan in the first place) I can see as being appealing to those who are unwilling to submit to authority, and are craving the things of this world without having to hold themselves personally responsible.

As for Kelly, her job was clear. Satan had her there for one purpose, and one purpose only. To glorify “sexual immorality” in the way she looked/dressed, and carried herself. Her attitude screamed of… “Serve Satan, and you can look like me girls, and as for you men, if you serve Satan, you can have girls like me.” Her pseudo-intellect was even “less than” her partner on stage. Her lack of self esteem shined through as she did nothing but ridicule, berate, and point at everyone and everything but herself the whole time. I have seen more factual arguments come from a 4th grader.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I find it

Sapient wrote:

I find it ironic that you asked in the forum post if we can answer without the ad hominem, while you have written a blog that says this about Kelly and I...

Quote:

http://www.thedailyway.com/?p=166

Sapien offered nothing more than a cocky attitude, mingled with half truths, and outdated, irrelevant facts. He spent most of his time acting as if there was no need for a God, because he was god. His reliance on his pseudo-intellect, and his ability to to deceive the unsaved (He has no chance of converting the elect, ergo he is only gathering those already assigned to satan in the first place) I can see as being appealing to those who are unwilling to submit to authority, and are craving the things of this world without having to hold themselves personally responsible.

As for Kelly, her job was clear. Satan had her there for one purpose, and one purpose only. To glorify “sexual immorality” in the way she looked/dressed, and carried herself. Her attitude screamed of… “Serve Satan, and you can look like me girls, and as for you men, if you serve Satan, you can have girls like me.” Her pseudo-intellect was even “less than” her partner on stage. Her lack of self esteem shined through as she did nothing but ridicule, berate, and point at everyone and everything but herself the whole time. I have seen more factual arguments come from a 4th grader.

 

Very interesting point.  Darth Josh had pointed me towards their site and I had seen that which I was quite surprised.  I would like to see what the response to this is from Guy as if I have ever seen a double standard, it would be their site and response to Brian and Kelly and this thread of them asking no ad hominems. 


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: BGH

The Daily Way wrote:
BGH wrote:

If this is true, why believe?

Because I choose to, just as the Atheist chooses not to...

Are not both the Atheist and Theist free to make choices?

Or is there a "double standard"?

If other Christians out there are beating Atheists over the head with a Bible to convert them, then those Christians are wrong. God "Elects", man has no say in who is a "Christian" and who is not.

If Atheists are beating Christians over the head with a Dawkins book, then those Atheists are wrong. They are refusing to allow the "Freethinking" they revere so much.

Are not Christians as well as Atheists allowed the right to "Freethinking"?

Or is there a "double standard"?

 

Was thinking about your accusation again and it occured to me that it is you who has the double standard.

Why don't you let me free think all I want?  Why don't you stop imposing your beliefs on me.

How come you're allowed to believe in god and i'm not allowed to not believe in (your) god?

How come you come in here and accuse us of having 'double standards' when it is you who has them.

I'm not holding you back from free thinking nor am i holding you back from faith so where is the double standard?

However, you keep trying to hold back my thoughts on god, on religion, etc... with accusations and false arguements.

Why do xtians do that?  You're the one coming here to stop the freethinking.... Should I go over to your site and stop xtians from having faith?

I won't, because even though I disagree with you, I still respect your thoughts and want to hear them.

You don't respect free thinking. 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Free Thinking wrote: Of

Free Thinking wrote:

Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want. In fact, I always encourage "thinking" especially to xtians when it comes up.

Yet in the next few quotes you will begin to tell me that I do not, and cannot! The imposition of YOUR will? You know me so well, tell me what number I am thinking of, and put it in your next post.

Free Thinking wrote:
But being a Xtian is totally opposite of what free thinking is. If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

Says who? My God? Show me in my Bible where my God says I cannot think freely, make choices, and live with the results of those choices. Didn't you just say...

Free Thinking wrote:
Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want

But then you just said....

Free Thinking wrote:
If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

I think freely, no one can or will stop me. So my mistake is placing the words free and thinker together like this: FreeThinker, so I should word it as: Free Thinker? Semantics...

So lets review...

FreeThinking is Good...

Christians are not FreeThinkers...

Christians are Bad...

Sounds like a familiar argument I have heard from many people on many subjects in many venues...

Free Thinking wrote:
And if one is a "free thinker" then one cannot be xtian.

Says who? The freethinkers? **See Above**

Free Thinking wrote:
I suggest you read up on "free thinking" before accussing us of "double standards".

I have, and remember... I am a "Free Thinker" and you are a "FreeThinker". A mistake on my part. Semantics. I am sorry, I made a mistake.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
Vessel wrote:

If people do believe it exists though, what can be done is one can take the claims made about it and prove that they are contradictory, or whatever the case may be, and thus force the teapotists to either hide behind blind irrationality and cling to their belief in the teapot, or confront the flaws inherent in their belief.

So the Atheist does what He or She wants, and the Theist does what they are told? Again, where is the freewill, the freethinking, the right and ability to choose and live with that choice?

Your non-belief is none of my business, why is my belief yours? 

Somebody can choose to live with any belief they want. I can challenge their reasoning for holding that belief and do my damndest to dissuade them for holding to irrational beliefs as I see them as detrimental to society.

What you are doing here is creating some strawman scenario where people's beliefs affect only those that hold them. The fact is we live in a society comprised of many people with many different beliefs. No one's beliefs exist in a vacuum. The beliefs held by the members of a society dictate the type of society in which we live.

If you wish to isolate your beliefs and leave to each his own that is your business, but then I hardly see your motive for posting here. If you are like me and wish to see a society that you believe would be a better place in which for humans to live their lives, then open dialogue and trying to educate people as to your position is a necessity.

 

 

Quote:
You use the words
Vessel wrote:
thus force the teapotists

Impose your will? Remove the teapotists right to think and choose? A double standard? Who is allowed to make choices out of freewill and freethinking, and who is not? Obviously not the teapotists, those poor souls are to be crushed under the heel of oppression of those that want to remove their right to think freely, and choose, and live with their choice!

Silliness. You can clearly see the context in which the word forced is used. No ones freewill to think and choose is being removed by having their beliefs, irrational or otherwise, confronted. Funny how you seem so opposed to people confronting other's beliefs but here tyou are confronting people's beliefs that they should confront other's beliefs. You have to admit, its rather hypocritical. You are crushing my right to freely choose to confront other's beliefs under the heel of opression. Can you see how absurd your complaints are?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

You are quick to deflect the burdon of proof on athesits, but fail to see the fallacy.

I am not. This post was made to see if Theists" are allowed to think freely, and choose as Atheists are allowed to.

I want to see if the Atheist is willing to walk the freethinking walk, or just talk the freethinking talk.

Brian37 wrote:
If I said, "Prove that Vishnu doesnt exist" would that make sense? No.

To you! But to me the point is irrelevant... The Vishnu believer, The Christian believer, and the Atheist has the ability to think and make their own desicions, and live with the results of those desicions. "Personal Resposibility" is what we lack in this society. We are too busy worrying about everyone else, and trying to control their lives. Is that what the Atheist Freethinking is built on? Control of the lives of others, and removing their freewill to choose, and replace it with yours?

If you want to believe or not believe, that is your choice, not mine. Your a big boy, think for yourself, and live with the repurcussions of your desicions. I do! I see it that way for all Humans. They all have the same right to choose, no matter what anyone thinks!

Brian37 wrote:
So insted of assuming these examples are personal attacks, try looking at the parallels in the examples given.

Never did assume such! Just asked if folks could answer without the Ad hominem, and you did! No accusations, no assumptions, just a question...

I hope you dont think I ever made anything hinting toward you accusing me of anthing. And I certainly will never deny anyone their right to believe anything, even when I think it is absurd.

I am merely saying that if someone is lacking evedence, I am by no means obligated to buy that claim. I would be doing myself a disservice to blindly buy anything.

I do think believers fool themselves when the issue comes to claims of deities(again, not just you, but every human in history from polythism to monoltheims).

In their daily lives they would not, for example, nor should they keep a job if the boss said, "Just have faith that you will get a paycheck". How many people would stay at a job if a boss did that?

Religion, be it yours or anyone elses seems to use the excuse of politicall correcteness and hides behind accusations of bigotry to avoid actuall using introspection to be sure what one is claiming is fact.

Religion is not on the same footing as say a telliscope, or yardstick, or phisics formula. Miosis can be taught to Shintoists, atheists and Muslims. Why is that?

Because it is not dependant on agenda or favortism. Science goes where the evidence leads when the process is applied objectively.

We also behaive that way subconciously outside the issue of religion. You type on this keyboard, you wear your seatbelt(or you shoud), You recieve a paycheck from your boss because you have evidence that can be verified and replicated.

We cannot take Ganish and replicate it in a petrie dish(sp). We cannot take a telliscope and find Apollo in the sky. We cant chop off someone's arm and expect it to magically grow back. These are fantastic claims.

I see all these above as being human immagination.

Science is not a dogma, it is a process of basing experiments on prior data with replication and falsification and the ethic of discarding old information that is proven wrong.

Theism cannot do that. It is emotionaly driven based upon ancient stories written at t period of human history where modern science did not exist.

It makes much more sense to me that the modern monotheism is merely a newer version of old polytheism which came from the oral tradtion which was very anthropromorphic and very wrong.

In laymens terms, humans merely like what they believe. Most dont test it or question it.

Be it your claims or any theist claim of any label, when you can replicate a deity like we can view miosis then you'd have something.

However hard it is to face that lack of ability, it would be wise of you to understand why it is important to face that. Once you do you will be unafraid to question anything. Qustioning leads to learning and education without superstition never led to more superstition, but can lead to understanding which can offer up plausable answers.

I just dont see using ancient holy books, be they the Egyptian book of the dead, or Quran, or Torrah or Bible, as a credible book to mesure reality. I see them as works of fiction that people wanted to believe as real.

Hero worship was not invented by Christians any more than it was invented by the Caananites and would be no more valid if written in the Reg Vedas.

If my bluntness bothers you, I am sorry. But as I said, I dont sugar coat my criticism. I do hope at a minumum, you understand that. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Daly Way: Hey, believe what

Daily Way: Hey, believe what you want. Go on, knock yourself out. As long as you're not breaking any laws or seeking to have your theories taught in a science classroom or trying to integrate them into government then feel free.

And speaking of freedom of faith, you mentioned you have nine children. I presume since you believe so ardently in freedom of speech and faith that you are allowing them to make up their own minds about whether or not God exists without any 'coaching'

Because otherwise your argument is just a tad hypocritical.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: The reason

Gizmo wrote:

The reason theres a difference is we are not the one making the extraordinary claim.

 What if the theist thinks that the atheist claim of "no God" is "extraordinary"? Does that give the theist an open door to demand proof?

I don't think so. I think neither side has any business in the personal belief or non belief of another person, and neither should the government get involved in personal belief or non belief either! 


ranjef
ranjef's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
ranjef wrote:

When has it become necessary to disprove that which cannot be proven?

 

The Daily Way wrote:
And how has it become "Necessary"?

That was my question as it was yours.

The Daily Way wrote:
Because those that oppose say so? The imposition of ones will upon another yet again? Humans have been doing that, are still doing it, and will continue to do it. When does the cycle break? When do ALL get to believe or not believe what they want?

But is the point really moot when much effort is made to continue the cycle with assertions for the existence of God which propagates the imposition of will for the unproven upon those that ask for more in the proof? Is not the "Grand Commission" of Christianity the act of converting the unbeliver?

If the point were truly moot, we would not be having this discussion, for our existence would not present an abhorrence to a believing group.

To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: Free

The Daily Way wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want. In fact, I always encourage "thinking" especially to xtians when it comes up.

Yet in the next few quotes you will begin to tell me that I do not, and cannot! The imposition of YOUR will? You know me so well, tell me what number I am thinking of, and put it in your next post.

Free Thinking wrote:
But being a Xtian is totally opposite of what free thinking is. If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

Says who? My God? Show me in my Bible where my God says I cannot think freely, make choices, and live with the results of those choices. Didn't you just say...

Free Thinking wrote:
Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want

But then you just said....

Free Thinking wrote:
If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

I think freely, no one can or will stop me. So my mistake is placing the words free and thinker together like this: FreeThinker, so I should word it as: Free Thinker? Semantics...

So lets review...

FreeThinking is Good...

Christians are not FreeThinkers...

Christians are Bad...

Sounds like a familiar argument I have heard from many people on many subjects in many venues...

Free Thinking wrote:
And if one is a "free thinker" then one cannot be xtian.

Says who? The freethinkers? **See Above**

Free Thinking wrote:
I suggest you read up on "free thinking" before accussing us of "double standards".

I have, and remember... I am a "Free Thinker" and you are a "FreeThinker". A mistake on my part. Semantics. I am sorry, I made a mistake.

 

I already suggested to you that you read up on free thinking already!

 Go ahead!  Free think you want!  But you can't call yourself a freethinker if you a xtian.  But if you are a xtian you can still freethink and we welcome you to do so.  Please consider freethinking! 

 

From Wikipedia (which i don't usually use because consenses become truths......)

Definition of a Freethinker:

Freethought holds that individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their beliefs on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of the factual/logical fallacies and intellectually limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principles. When applied to religion, the philosophy of freethought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.

A line from "Clifford's Credo" by the 19th Century British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford perhaps best describes the premise of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Since many laws, doctrines, and popular beliefs are based on dogmas, freethinkers' opinions are often at odds with commonly-established views.

 

Definition of Ignoance:

n.   The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. 

 

I would never go around pretending I understood what xtianity was.  Please stop pretending you know what freething is.

How come you're allowed to defend yourself, and I am not? 

How come you're allowed to define what freethinking is and i am not allowed to define what xtianity is?

Oh and btw, NEVER did I say xtianity is bad.  Show me where I said that.

 

Please consider doing some freethinking.

You still cannot be a xtian and be a freethinker.... but you can be a xtian and do some freethinking.  And once again, I am in no way trying to impose my beliefs on you.  But you continue to impose your beliefs on me.

How come xtians are allowed to keep imposing their beliefs on everything and no one else is?  Or do they just not respect people enough?

 

 

 

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: FACT:

The Daily Way wrote:

FACT: There is NO Physical/Tangible "Evidence" that God exists.

Question: "How can you Disprove something that does not exist?"

 

Is not the argument of Atheist vs. Theist a moot point, since neither side  can produce evidence because the fact in question states that there is no argument? 

 

What type of evidence would be required? Is there anything satisfactory?

Non-cognitivism states that the concept of God is nonsensical. This seems to imply that evidence for god cannot exist.


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Icebergin wrote: The burden

Icebergin wrote:
The burden or proof is on you,

 Says who? I have already stated that there is NO PROOF, where in the law of mankind says I must prove what is personal, and not public to me?

Icebergin wrote:
and I feel that you have the right to believe in an Unvisible Pink Unicorn if you want to.

But do I have the right to believe in God? Do I have the right to believe without being compelled to "show proof", do I have a right to personal thoughts?

Icebergin wrote:
My objection comes when Christianization of America continues.

And I am in agreement with you 101% on that! The government should have no ties to religion, nor show any preference to any religion over another! 


Icebergin wrote:
The deluision of a theistic view affects me and the laws governing me, I have the right as a Freethinking citizen of the world to stand up against these delusions and say "enough."

If a voter is a Christian, and votes too bad. One man, one vote, only force of arms will ever remove that system of desicion making, and any attempt to remove the vote of the people would lead to mass bloodshed on both sides. Christians are voters, Atheists are voters, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, they are all voters. That is something that needs to be changed at a grassroots level through the proper political methods.

 

Icebergin wrote:
Believe whatever you want, I don't care. Just stop placing mythology in with science and education and I'll be personally content with you holding onto irrational beliefs.

But I don't! That is my point! Science has no place in Christianity, or public education! I homeschool, and pass on my "Christian Values" to my children in private, not public! I agree with you my friend!

I am not the TBN/Sky Angel/Daystar/EWTN Christian... I am a simple Calvinist that believes in reformation back to the Bible's original narrative. I say the Church needs to change, and discard mans added Dogma, that is outside of proven theological conclusions...

Icebergin wrote:
Thanks.

Your Welcome! and Thank You! 


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
The whole thing is an

The whole thing is an argument to ignorance.

 

Just because I cannot DISPROVE the existance of a deity does NOT make the case for said deity stronger.

 

There's a dragon in my garage. 


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: Free

The Daily Way wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want. In fact, I always encourage "thinking" especially to xtians when it comes up.

Yet in the next few quotes you will begin to tell me that I do not, and cannot! The imposition of YOUR will? You know me so well, tell me what number I am thinking of, and put it in your next post.

Free Thinking wrote:
But being a Xtian is totally opposite of what free thinking is. If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

Says who? My God? Show me in my Bible where my God says I cannot think freely, make choices, and live with the results of those choices. Didn't you just say...

Free Thinking wrote:
Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want

But then you just said....

Free Thinking wrote:
If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

I think freely, no one can or will stop me. So my mistake is placing the words free and thinker together like this: FreeThinker, so I should word it as: Free Thinker? Semantics...

So lets review...

FreeThinking is Good...

Christians are not FreeThinkers...

Christians are Bad...

Sounds like a familiar argument I have heard from many people on many subjects in many venues...

Free Thinking wrote:
And if one is a "free thinker" then one cannot be xtian.

Says who? The freethinkers? **See Above**

Free Thinking wrote:
I suggest you read up on "free thinking" before accussing us of "double standards".

I have, and remember... I am a "Free Thinker" and you are a "FreeThinker". A mistake on my part. Semantics. I am sorry, I made a mistake.

 

Sorry, I wish I was able to figure this forum thing out so that I could address all your concerns.

Freethinking is considering facts.  If you are a freethinker you are considering facts and scientific evidence and conclude that they are facts.

If you are a xtian, you can consider facts and science (freethinking) but because you are an xtian, you cannot be a freethinker because you continue to dismiss scientific evidence.

And please stop accussing me of saying stuff like "xtianity is bad" or of double standards in this matter as your accusations are false.  I could free think about this, read the posts and make such a conclusion.  Show me where in these posts I say "xtianity is bad" or show me evidence of where I impose a double standard.

I can show you a whole lotta things in the bible that says you can do this or that, but so what? So go ahead and think! 

 Oh also, who is it btw that says you're not a freethinker?  The freethinking mandate does.

Who says that I am not a xtian?  I don't steal or cheat.  I have compassion and give the benefit of the doubt.  I do xtian like things, like volenteering and contributing to the community, I take care of my folks.

You know who says I'm not a xtian?  ME

I don't need the bible to do good things.  I choose to do good things because they are good.  Getting into heaven has nothing to do with it.

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: Gizmo

The Daily Way wrote:
Gizmo wrote:

The reason theres a difference is we are not the one making the extraordinary claim.

What if the theist thinks that the atheist claim of "no God" is "extraordinary"? Does that give the theist an open door to demand proof?

I don't think so. I think neither side has any business in the personal belief or non belief of another person, and neither should the government get involved in personal belief or non belief either!

We have no business telling those Jihadists to stop blowing things up because after all, it is what they want to believe.

Quote:
and neither should the government get involved in personal belief or non belief either!

Boy I'd love to believe you. But the last president America had who denied the divinity of Jesus was Thomas Jefferson.

And I am quite sure you'd be agreable to putting this quote from him along side the pledge on every classroom wall.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear". Thomas Jefferson

Please prove me wrong. Please tell me you value a neutral goverment as you so claim in this post. Please tell me that all the private mass media such as billboards, 360,000 churchs, newspapers, tv stations, bumperstickers, radio stations, phone book adds, your website, the internet. ect ect ect.....

Please tell me that is enough for you. It is for many Christians who'd agree with me that "God" in the pledge and on our currancy DOES violate the first amendment and DOES promote the favortism of Christianity over other religions.

I love to be proven wrong. I'd love to think that a Christian is willing to vote for an atheist to our highest offices. I'd love to think that "No Religious Test" which is in the constitution would be and should be upheld by all people calling themselves United States Citizens.

I'd love to see the day when all Americans are willing to vote on common ground issues rather than divisive party labels or religious labels. I'd like to see an Asian American born in America sit on the Supreme Court or be ellected Vice President.

I'd love to truely believe that you mean that goverment should stay out of your religion. I suspect however what you really mean is that people that dont call themselves "Christian" should accept second class status and never hope to run for any high office, even if they are decent people who are born in this country.

I do suspect that you think the only people capable of owning the deed to our constituion must swear alleagance to Jesus, be they liberal or conservitive and that anyone outside that label should take their seat at the back of the political bus and never raise their voices.

Again, I do hope I am wrong. I do hope you dont think that every atheist at this site, even if you dont like me, should be tossed aside from any political consideration even if they have economic or social common ground with you outside the issue of weither or not a deity exists.

I do hope I am wrong. And to the non-Christian citizens in America reading this post, especially the ones born in this country, be you Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist or others, pay close attention to his response. I do hope I am wrong though.

I do hope he values individuality and can seek common ground outside the issue of weither or not a deity exists. Even if he wont vote for me, (not assuming because I have not heard his response yet) but even if, WOULD HE PUT A THEIST OF ANOTHER LABEL ON OUR SUPREME COURT? WOULD HE DO WHAT THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS IN "NO RELIGIOUS TEST"

Pay close attention to his answer if you do not hold the label Christian but hold the label citizen.

I cant repeat this enough. I do hope I am wrong. Especially on the issue of OUR GOVERNMENT. I wont take a back seat to anyone simply because they claim I should, and neither should any decent citizen of any religious label who is born in this country.

PAY ATTENTION TO HIS ANSWER! This effects not only atheists, but anyone outside his label. I do hope I am wrong. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Daily Way. There are not

Daily Way. There are not many atheists who believe absolutely there is no God, we just don't believe there is one, because we are given no reason to believe one, all the arguments have big huge gaping flaws in them, that is not opinion that is fact.

You misunderstand our position, giving us a position that in your mind would require just as much faith as you yourself depend upon.

As for your claim not to preach to people, what then is the point of your website? The blog quoted by Mr Sapient (whose comment you didn't reply to) is clearly propaganda designed to make people outraged at atheists. You shove your own puritan values on what makes sexual morality and claim that Satan is behind the way Kelly dresses. And yet you give no realistic explanation as to why that is amoral, I'm sure you'll probably say that it is God's morality, but why should God be so prudent? In fact sexual prudency in Christianity is a feature of it that has only arisen in the last couple of hundred years. Free thinkers base morality on what actually harms people here on Earth, in the only world we can actually believe in, the only world that presents measurable evidence. You don't catch us calling you amoral, I don't call your sexual practices into question, you may have some slightly odd bible based moralities, we may question them, challenge them but we don't call you evil or Satanic for believing in them. What you said about Mr Sapient and Kelly was quite simply insulting. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if we accused a member of your family/ religious group/ friends of being a bad, morally bankrupt person.

 

 


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I find it

Sapient wrote:

I find it ironic that you asked in the forum post if we can answer without the ad hominem, while you have written a blog that says this about Kelly and I...

I find it ironic that you would copy and paste verbatim material that is clearly under the assumption of copyright on a website that says

Copyright ©2007

Guy R. Vestal

All Rights Reserved

Without permission from the author. But since someone has done it once here already, and I did not present it as an infringement, and because your rules do not state that copyright infringement is wrong, I had no recourse to present my claim to. So I must simply let it pass seeing as I will answer it here.

Again, like the other fellow, you did not quote my criticism of Ray and Kirk! Selective copyright infringement aye? 

And if you look back through my posts, I had admitted I was wrong, and had shown "bad fruits" becuase of my "opinion" of the debate as a whole. Which had the Lord lead me here to see the people I had judged, only to find them as normal and everyday as the Christian rank & file. (Read through my posts, you will see my admission.) In case you are interested, I have a draft set to post on my findings after the Lord leading me here, showing what I had learned by sitting at meat as my Lord had done. And I believe it will be rather scathing to the Christian community as a whole because our own intolerance. If you like, I can post a link to it in the venue of your choosing so that you can see what I have gleaned from my time here.


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Free Thinking wrote: I

Free Thinking wrote:

I won't, because even though I disagree with you, I still respect your thoughts and want to hear them.

As do I... 

Free Thinking wrote:
You don't respect free thinking.

And that quote tells me that neither do you. But like you said, I still respect your thoughts, and want to hear them, and will answer them when given so that you will have been paid the proper attention to your sharing them with me... 


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
Sapient wrote:

I find it ironic that you asked in the forum post if we can answer without the ad hominem, while you have written a blog that says this about Kelly and I...

I find it ironic that you would copy and paste verbatim material that is clearly under the assumption of copyright on a website that says

Copyright ©2007

Guy R. Vestal

All Rights Reserved

Without permission from the author. But since someone has done it once here already, and I did not present it as an infringement, and because your rules do not state that copyright infringement is wrong, I had no recourse to present my claim to. So I must simply let it pass seeing as I will answer it here.

Again, like the other fellow, you did not quote my criticism of Ray and Kirk! Selective copyright infringement aye?

And if you look back through my posts, I had admitted I was wrong, and had shown "bad fruits" becuase of my "opinion" of the debate as a whole. Which had the Lord lead me here to see the people I had judged, only to find them as normal and everyday as the Christian rank & file. (Read through my posts, you will see my admission.) In case you are interested, I have a draft set to post on my findings after the Lord leading me here, showing what I had learned by sitting at meat as my Lord had done. And I believe it will be rather scathing to the Christian community as a whole because our own intolerance. If you like, I can post a link to it in the venue of your choosing so that you can see what I have gleaned from my time here.

 

You clearly have no idea about copyright laws.

Anyone can quote you, and that's what 'copying and pasting' is.

Idle, uninformed threats will get you nowhere. 


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: You are

Vessel wrote:

You are crushing my right to freely choose to confront other's beliefs under the heel of opression.

 

Confront all you want, but my answer will never change.

I have no proof...

I have no need of proof...

I have no need to prove... 


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
Vessel wrote:

You are crushing my right to freely choose to confront other's beliefs under the heel of opression.

 

Confront all you want, but my answer will never change.

I have no proof...

I have no need of proof...

I have no need to prove...

 

Then why are you here? 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
Vessel wrote:

You are crushing my right to freely choose to confront other's beliefs under the heel of opression.

 

Confront all you want, but my answer will never change.

I have no proof...

I have no need of proof...

I have no need to prove... 

You either missed the point of my entire response to you or you are dishonest and select only out of context fragments from responses to reply to because you have no response for the other parts. This type of quote mining and selective response is not the way to hold an honest open discussion and I am saddened, though by no means suprised, that this is how you conduct yourself.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: The Daily

Maragon wrote:
The Daily Way wrote:
Sapient wrote:

I find it ironic that you asked in the forum post if we can answer without the ad hominem, while you have written a blog that says this about Kelly and I...

I find it ironic that you would copy and paste verbatim material that is clearly under the assumption of copyright on a website that says

Copyright ©2007

Guy R. Vestal

All Rights Reserved

Without permission from the author. But since someone has done it once here already, and I did not present it as an infringement, and because your rules do not state that copyright infringement is wrong, I had no recourse to present my claim to. So I must simply let it pass seeing as I will answer it here.

Again, like the other fellow, you did not quote my criticism of Ray and Kirk! Selective copyright infringement aye?

And if you look back through my posts, I had admitted I was wrong, and had shown "bad fruits" becuase of my "opinion" of the debate as a whole. Which had the Lord lead me here to see the people I had judged, only to find them as normal and everyday as the Christian rank & file. (Read through my posts, you will see my admission.) In case you are interested, I have a draft set to post on my findings after the Lord leading me here, showing what I had learned by sitting at meat as my Lord had done. And I believe it will be rather scathing to the Christian community as a whole because our own intolerance. If you like, I can post a link to it in the venue of your choosing so that you can see what I have gleaned from my time here.

 

You clearly have no idea about copyright laws.

Anyone can quote you, and that's what 'copying and pasting' is.

Idle, uninformed threats will get you nowhere.

LOL, PWNED!! 


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I hope you

Brian37 wrote:

I hope you dont think I ever made anything hinting toward you accusing me of anthing.

By no means Sir. You have quite professional in our dialog, and that is something to be applauded! 

 

Brian37 wrote:
And I certainly will never deny anyone their right to believe anything, even when I think it is absurd.

And neither will I . Let those believe, or not believe what they choose! 

Brian37 wrote:
I am merely saying that if someone is lacking evedence, I am by no means obligated to buy that claim.

You are correct! I have no evidence, and do not expect you to be "saved" by me whatsoever! That is not my job, it is God's! In fact, I repeat... Christians that have Physical/Tangible evidence are lying! They have manufactured it! Do not believe it!

Salvation is "Through Grace by Faith", not by physical/tangible evidence! If there were evidence, faith would not be needed, ergo... If my brethren present physical/tangible evidence, confront them! They are wrong!

I will even help you debunk them! 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: I

The Daily Way wrote:

I find it ironic that you would copy and paste verbatim material that is clearly under the assumption of copyright on a website that says

I find it ironic that you quote copyright law with no fucking clue as to how copyright law works.  I on the other hand have a fairly good idea how abusing copyright law works, see my lawsuit vs. Uri Geller.

 

Quote:
 

And if you look back through my posts, I had admitted I was wrong, and had shown "bad fruits" becuase of my "opinion" of the debate as a whole. Which had the Lord lead me here to see the people I had judged, only to find them as normal and everyday as the Christian rank & file. (Read through my posts, you will see my admission.) In case you are interested, I have a draft set to post on my findings after the Lord leading me here, showing what I had learned by sitting at meat as my Lord had done. And I believe it will be rather scathing to the Christian community as a whole because our own intolerance. If you like, I can post a link to it in the venue of your choosing so that you can see what I have gleaned from my time here.

Yes I would like to see that link when it's done.  Also I'd love to see revisions to your original piece should the lord choose to bless you in such a manner as to steer you down that path of harmony and bliss. 

- Brian Sapient


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


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
ranjef wrote: Is not the

ranjef wrote:

Is not the "Grand Commission" of Christianity the act of converting the unbeliver?

Preach, teach, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Yes. And I do that! I am doing that here! I do it in my own ministry! I just do not do it by hitting folks over the head with a Bible. I talk to them, share my answers to their questions, ask questions, and let them make the choices they are going to make, and be personally responsible for them.

God saves, not me. Don't confuse me with the Christians you see on TV giving out glow in the dark crosses for donations. Those "Elect" will hear the voice of the Shepherd in God's time, not the Christian's...


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
"One man, one vote" is a

"One man, one vote" is a lie. I live in Indiana, which because of it's conservative "family values" and low IQ, will always vote Republican. My vote does not count.

If "One man, one vote," were true, Al Gore would be the President of the United States of American, because in that election 500,000+ votes meant nothing.

But I digress. The "dragon in my garage" arguement is the same as the arguement for a God, and we will argue until we're both blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, Rook's research is evidence that Jesus didn't exist, which is more evidence than the existance of God. Quantity and quality of evidence in God is overwhelmingly in favor of a religious deluision. Even if a Jesus did exist, there is also evidence that he was trained as a Buddhist, left Israel after being crucified (and not dying), and went to Kashmir. If either of these is true, Christianity is dead.

It's really a moot point. You are an atheist to Zeus, Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and a Dragon in My Garage. Why are you able to see the absurdity of all these dieties, but not your own?

Is it your fear of death or an ingrained religion since birth that makes you believe so strongly? Be honest with yourself.

You want to know why you're a Christian? You were either born it, or you were indoctrinated by an outside Christian force. If you want to get technical, you're only a Christian because Constantine I of Rome converted and demanded that the Roman Empire become Christian.

It has nothing to do with you hearing the voice of God. I've heard it too. It was a delusion, it was my brain placing a supernatural meaning on a natural occurance. I used to talk to God every night, but throught basic observations of the world, anthropology, history, and evolution I was able to come to the simple rational conclusion that there is no God.

Study the history of humanity, specifically the history of religion. Christianity is an infant religion when compared to the ancient animalistic and polytheistic religions of the past. Then study the evolution of man, and understand that we created religion to understand natural occurances of which we had no explaination for at the time. Religion covers the gaps that science can not.

Eventually it will run out of gaps.

Thanks, and sorry for the long post or any insult you may infer from it. I write this in the interest of simply explaining to you rational reasons why your faith is wrong, the evidence that there is no God, and trying to show you that there is indeed logical evidence that there is no God, just human imagination.

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician

The Patrician wrote:

allowing them to make up their own minds about whether or not God exists without any 'coaching'

Because otherwise your argument is just a tad hypocritical.

My "coaching" has nothing to do with it. I am a "Calvinist", I believe in "Election". Whether or not they are saved has nothing to do with anything I could possibly "intervene" with. That choice of whether or not they will be saved was made before the foundation of the world when the names of the elect were written in the "Lamb's Book Of Life".

I can "coach" till blue in the face, but if their names are not written in that book, they are not going to Heaven.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: The

The Daily Way wrote:
The Patrician wrote:

allowing them to make up their own minds about whether or not God exists without any 'coaching'

Because otherwise your argument is just a tad hypocritical.

My "coaching" has nothing to do with it. I am a "Calvinist", I believe in "Election". Whether or not they are saved has nothing to do with anything I could possibly "intervene" with. That choice of whether or not they will be saved was made before the foundation of the world when the names of the elect were written in the "Lamb's Book Of Life".

I can "coach" till blue in the face, but if their names are not written in that book, they are not going to Heaven.

 

And I'll bet you think that YOUR name is in that book, huh?

How egotistical. 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
You still haven't answered

You still haven't answered my post. You seem to have some misconceptions of what atheism is. It is an absense of a belief, not the belief of the opposite of said belief. And as you say, there is no evidence to prove God. As an empiricist the only way we can know anything is through our senses. I cannot sense God - neither can you, that is not to say I can't have "spiritual experiences", I have them, I feel overwhelmed by the world, I feel a presence sometimes, but the difference is, I cannot know that such things are outside my own mind, they seem really to be a human reaction to the wonder that is existence.

You say quite openly that you cannot prove God exists. If it cannot be proven, then what reason do you have to believe it? The rational option is to withhold belief until proof presents itself.

 


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Free Thinking wrote: But

Free Thinking wrote:

But you continue to impose your beliefs on me.

Where have I done that? You have a link to a post where I specifically did that?

I have been sitting here answering questions and opinions to each post, (Boy it gets tiring, there must be alot of posts!)

There is nothing for me to impose, mine is not to save, I cannot save you, only God can, I have no way of influencing His desicion whether or not to shew Grace upon you. 

Read up on "John Calvin", and you will see that it is out of my hands!


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Free Thinking wrote: I

Free Thinking wrote:

I don't need the bible to do good things. I choose to do good things because they are good. Getting into heaven has nothing to do with it.

And doing good works has nothing to do with "Getting into Heaven", it has to do with "God's Grace" only...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
Vessel wrote:

You are crushing my right to freely choose to confront other's beliefs under the heel of opression.

 

Confront all you want, but my answer will never change.

I have no proof...

I have no need of proof...

I have no need to prove...

Damn it. I allow myself and blame myself for wishfull thinking. The first post I read from you sounded promising. But as I suspected and wish I was wrong about, you clam up when things get heated.

You came here because you wanted to convince us that your deity existed. You are now getting frustrated because we dont say, "Oh isnt that nice" Kumbia my lord.

Fine. I personally still want you to stay, but if you are not going to engauge in providing evidence for your claims I'd advise you to stay away from threads dealing with the issue of any deity's existance. On this forum if you bring it up, we ARE going to ask questions. HARD QUESTIONS, TOUGH QUESTIONS!

If you dont want to tackle that I actually understand. I myself avoid certain threads too. But what I dont or wont do is go to another board and stick a broomhandle in a hornet's nest and expect the hornets to say, "Hey lets just submit".

You are welcome to stay(I cant speek for the owner or mods here, since I am neither) But do value those who stick around and dont run scared. But just as I'd expect certain behaivor if I went to a  a Christian website, you should not act suprised by our questions here. What did you expect?

So, since you say " I dont need to"

It is settled. You wont be convinced.Ok, but dont expect us to buy any claims you make after a statement like that. If a Muslim claimed that Allah existed and then said, "I dont need to prove it" would you be stupid enough to say, "Ok, since you claim it I'll buy it" I hope you are smarter than that.

It is not about "live and let live" DUH! We get that. It is about evidence, and we cant go any further after you make a claim and then say, "I dont have to prove a thing"

I agree, you dont, but we are under no obligation to convert especialy if that is all you have as an arugument, " I dont have to prove a thing". 

I wish I was wrong but if you run you are proving our point that you came here to "teach us" because you wanted to "save us". If that is not what you ment, prove us wrong and provide evidence.

Otherwise you have 3 options.

1. Stay and make a case for your deity

2. Stay and disscuss non religious issues.

3. Leave.

What we dont take kindly to is being expected to passively submit just because you say so. We dont do that for Wiccans, pantheists or Muslims and you are no different.

If you make a claim, provide evidence for that claim. If you cant, we wont hate you, we simply wont buy the claim. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way

The Daily Way wrote:
ranjef wrote:

Is not the "Grand Commission" of Christianity the act of converting the unbeliver?

Preach, teach, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Yes. And I do that! I am doing that here! I do it in my own ministry! I just do not do it by hitting folks over the head with a Bible. I talk to them, share my answers to their questions, ask questions, and let them make the choices they are going to make, and be personally responsible for them.

God saves, not me. Don't confuse me with the Christians you see on TV giving out glow in the dark crosses for donations. Those "Elect" will hear the voice of the Shepherd in God's time, not the Christian's...

Preaching gets people booted here. If you want to debate that is fine, but this is an atheist site, not a place to preach to the Chior. If that is what you thought, you are wasting our time and yours.

We are not passive people so dont expect to "teach" us a thing. PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM! That is what it takes here.

Preaching is a big no no here, and we wouldnt care if you were a Muslim or Seihk(sp). I love a good debate, but I cant stand preachers. You find most people here think the same way.

We dont need a father figure, we are adults and accept or reject something on evidence alone. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: Free

The Daily Way wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

I won't, because even though I disagree with you, I still respect your thoughts and want to hear them.

As do I...

Free Thinking wrote:
You don't respect free thinking.

And that quote tells me that neither do you. But like you said, I still respect your thoughts, and want to hear them, and will answer them when given so that you will have been paid the proper attention to your sharing them with me...

No, you still do not respect free thinking.  I already tried to tell you what the mandate of free thinking is.  You don't respect the fact that we use scientific evidence to come to a conclusion because of the continual denial of scientfic fact.

I can respect your faith.  I understand it originates from the bible and I do not deny that. I respect that you use it to make conclusions.  I do not deny the existance of the bible or what is written in it.

Why do xtians deny scientific evidence?  If you truely respected free thinking, you cannot deny the existance of scientific evidence. 

If you truly respected free thinking then you wouldn't try to define what it is when you are ignorant of it.

I do not know much about xtianity, I do not define it and I do not go around preaching against it.   I admit my ignorance of it because I am a freethinker and as a freethinker, I cannot deny scientific evidence.

 Stop forcing me to post.  I actully prefer lurking, but it really upsets me when xtians come here pretending they know everything and imposing their ignorance, getting all self-righteous.

Still can't see this double standard you're talking about.  And still don't see where I said that xtianity is bad.  I don't think I even implied that. !

I don't like it when xtians twist the facts just as much as you don't like it when the bible is twisted. 

 

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: Free

The Daily Way wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

But you continue to impose your beliefs on me.

Where have I done that? You have a link to a post where I specifically did that?

I have been sitting here answering questions and opinions to each post, (Boy it gets tiring, there must be alot of posts!)

There is nothing for me to impose, mine is not to save, I cannot save you, only God can, I have no way of influencing His desicion whether or not to shew Grace upon you.

Read up on "John Calvin", and you will see that it is out of my hands!

 

*There is nothing for me to impose, mine is not to save, I cannot save you, only God can, I have no way of influencing His desicion whether or not to shew Grace upon you.*

 

You are imposing your beliefs on me right here.

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: The Daily

Maragon wrote:
The Daily Way wrote:
The Patrician wrote:

allowing them to make up their own minds about whether or not God exists without any 'coaching'

Because otherwise your argument is just a tad hypocritical.

My "coaching" has nothing to do with it. I am a "Calvinist", I believe in "Election". Whether or not they are saved has nothing to do with anything I could possibly "intervene" with. That choice of whether or not they will be saved was made before the foundation of the world when the names of the elect were written in the "Lamb's Book Of Life".

I can "coach" till blue in the face, but if their names are not written in that book, they are not going to Heaven.

 

And I'll bet you think that YOUR name is in that book, huh?

How egotistical.

So you came here to tell us we're going to hell and you sincerely believe (you can't know) you're not?

Tend to your own knitting and I'll tend to mine, OK? 

"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


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: Free

The Daily Way wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

I don't need the bible to do good things. I choose to do good things because they are good. Getting into heaven has nothing to do with it.

And doing good works has nothing to do with "Getting into Heaven", it has to do with "God's Grace" only...

 

Here too!  You are imposing you beliefs on me. 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
The Daily Way wrote: Free

The Daily Way wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

I don't need the bible to do good things. I choose to do good things because they are good. Getting into heaven has nothing to do with it.

And doing good works has nothing to do with "Getting into Heaven", it has to do with "God's Grace" only...

This is something that I have never understood from the Calvinist view.  If one has to be elected to get into Heaven, then why bother believing in the first place.  Your either going in or not, why waste your time worshipping.  And if the answer is "Well only those that believe are getting into heaven cause they were basically made to believe" then from what I can tell that completely throws free will out the window again.  And again, if their is no evidence to convince me and I choose not to follow and im sent to go live with Satan, God must suck that he makes people he knows that are going to go to Hell.  As I and others have stated before, hell sounds better than worshipping a deity that does that to people on purpose.