As he's entirely too modest to tell you so himself, I'm happy to announce our own Matt Dillahunty got profiled in the local paper, which is probably the most publicity the Atheist Experience TV show has gotten in its entire 10-year history. (You're going to be intercepted by "Register now!" crap when you click the link. Just log in with username dwan8@dodgeit.com, password dwandwan.)
They kind of make it sound like The Matt Show, not mentioning the fact that it's been on ten years and has inspired numerous atheist groups around the country to start their own similar access shows during all that time. But I like that the Statesman, which has never exactly had a very kind disposition towards the nonreligious, could manage such a fair article. Hopefully it will bring a lot of attention. Congratulations, Matt!
What no "pictured right"? Lol
ReplyDeleteCongrats again Matt.
Just fyi, for people not in Austin, the article is actually the top center article on the metro and state section--directly under the mast! And Matt got a photo.
ReplyDeleteCongrats, Matt! Way to go!
Congratulations Matt!
ReplyDeleteTaken as a whole, not a bad article. Seemed a little lightweight (clearly not enought space for a an in depth analysis), but very good and gets a few issues out there in the public that might casuse some to start thinking a little for themselves. And that would be a very good think indeed.
ReplyDeleteGood for Matt, Good for The Atheist Experience TV show. Well done --- almost time for the show and I want to watch today to see if there any extra callers who saw the article.
Nice article.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see fair representation in a mainstream news source.
Oh man... now he's going to start auctioning off his autograph on ebay and demanding a cushier chair in the studio. ;)
ReplyDeleteI'm actually pretty impressed that the reporter was able to reduce Matt's story into that, seemingly impossible, short length.
And, a word to all of the Matt Groupies... we now have something to pin up on our bulletin boards and blow kisses at. ;)
Seriously, though, nice publicity for the show and the ACA!
Obviously I'm not too modest, I posted a link and summary over at the Ironchariots.org forum. :)
ReplyDeleteI was very happy to see a non-negative, prominent piece on atheism in the paper. I was a little disappointed that there wasn't more infomation on the ACA and its goals (as we spent considerable time talking about that during several interviews), and I was also disappointed that the article failed to mention the details about when and where to watch the show.
But, it's a start. Maybe now that we've done "my story", I can get Eileen to do a story on the ACA as a community organization. I think that may depend on what sort of feedback she gets on this piece.
I thought it was a great article. It showed Matt as a caring and engaging person, not some selfish heathen trying to convert the faithful to atheism. I love the show and have turned others on to it as well. Congrats!!
ReplyDeleteMatt I just read the article and it seems we have something in common, The Navy
ReplyDeleteI was on FFG-25 USS Copeland I was a #1 Pilot Rescue Swimmer, LSE, Master Helmsman, and Training Officer. How about you?
Latter on in life I thought the Philippines, Australia and Fiji would keep me from heaven. There were so temptations for me, there were a lot of Godless people (including me) on board the ship. We would tease the Christians because they would never go out drinking with us. Then when I got out and was 23 when my career was in a downward spiral I read the bible like a book and was changed forever. My career took off and I helped start a company and in six years we were making 50 million a year. I hooked up with a Godless buddy from the military and I broke off started that POS Company and I was successful and had plenty of money but I felt like I was drowning. It is strange how you were raised Christian and turned into an atheist and I was raised atheist and, with God guiding me, turned into a Christian. I lived the sinful life and didn’t want it anymore and I guess you just longed for it. I can’t even tell you how many atheists I talk to, such as all of you, started Christian. There has to be a correlation between the two. There is a variable that must connect all of you to the reason why you all fell away. Have you all talked about that? Did you find a common link such as strict parenting or no spankings or a longing for the missed sinning? I know all of you will say that you needed proof and started to question your faith but why were you questioning it in the first place? There has to be a link of some sort. Can we explore it a bit? I am curious for it seems the real devout atheists, such as you, are past Christians why is that?
For Him,
Dan
I was on FFG-25 USS Copeland I was a #1 Pilot Rescue Swimmer, LSE, Master Helmsman, and Training Officer. How about you?
ReplyDeleteDan, is this gloating or pride? You said yourself that pride was a sin.
I'm a war vet and you don't hear
me listing out every single thing I have done in the armed forces.
It is strange how you were raised Christian and turned into an atheist and I was raised atheist and, with God guiding me, turned into a Christian.
Hardly, Dan. Go to the show's website and listen to Tracie on last Sunday's show. She covers this question for you.
I lived the sinful life and didn’t want it anymore and I guess you just longed for it.
How the hell do you know what Matt "longed for"?
I can’t even tell you how many atheists I talk to, such as all of you, started Christian. There has to be a correlation between the two. There is a variable that must connect all of you to the reason why you all fell away. Have you all talked about that?
We have already told you the correlation, Dan. It is wagging back and forth across your face, but you refuse to acknowledge it.
I should stress again that you need to listen to last week's show. It covers all of this and more. Plus you will get to hear Matt mention YOU as well.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThere may indeed be a correlation between being an anti-theist and having been an ex-Christian as ex-Christians have seen the harm caused by the barbaric rules(and all the various interpretations of those rules) contained in the Bible in an up close and personal way. However, you should be careful when painting a broad stroke by extrapolating your personal experience with atheists to atheists as a whole. Atheists are people who don't believe in God. Period. If you were born and lived in India you might comment on how atheists there seem to be mostly ex-Hindu and be searching for some false causality between being Hindu and then being atheists.
Other than a lack of belief in a supernatural creator there is no variable that ties atheists together.
Speaking for myself, however, I am curious as to what you mean by longing for the sinful life. I imagine that you and I share many of the same values. I try to live my life in a way that I treat people fairly and honestly and hope to leave the world a little better place than it was when I came into it. I do this not because I am worried what some psychopathic God will think of me, but because it is the right thing to do. I care about my friends and family and living this way is how I show I care about them. I don't need a God to frighten me into behaving this way...and if you think about it...neither do you.
The reason I don't believe in God(or any gods) is there is terrible to no evidence for the existence of any all-knowing, all-loving God, who takes an active interest in human affairs. Your evidence for the Biblical God consists of a book written ~2,000 years ago by a primitive people living in a tiny part of the Middle East in which the nature of God was revealed to a select group of individuals.
You believe this book to be the infallible word of the Creator of the Universe despite the fact that most every claim about our world contained in that book has been shown to be wrong by centuries of science. This science includes literally tens of millions of experiments, millions of published research results, and mountains of physical evidence. The conclusions of which can be INDEPENDENTLY verified. That's a key distinction between science and religion. We rely on evidence that can be independently verified. You rely on private revelations.
My experience and the experience of many others is that private revelations are not to be trusted. How do you distinguish between the private revelations in regards to Jesus Christ from the private revelations of Mohammed? If you are intellectually honest, you will realize that you can't distinguish between the two(or any other claims of divine beings).
When you couple the lack of ability to distinguish between stories of private revlations with the fact that so much harm and division is inflicted on our planet by these incompatible "faiths", you'll see why people such as Matt consider it a moral obligation to point out the flaws in your thinking. For most atheists it really is about the needless harm and suffering inflicted on others by people who hold incompatible beliefs about what God wants them to do. It has nothing to do with longing for a 'sinners" lifestyle.
Mark
Dan: I was on FFG-25 USS Copeland I was a #1 Pilot Rescue Swimmer, LSE, Master Helmsman, and Training Officer. How about you?
ReplyDeleteAndrew: Dan, is this gloating or pride? You said yourself that pride was a sin.
Actually, Andrew, if I may interject a comment here, I took that as Dan trying to establish a commonality and mutual empathy with Matt, not as boasting. (At least, that's the way ex-military friends of mine talk when they meet another ex-military person -- "Oh, you were in the Army/Navy/AF/etc too? I was in the X-platoon as a Y officer and did Z, ZZ, and ZZZ. How about you?")
It's a pretty decent conversational technique, and many people ~have~ been asking Dan, either directly or indirectly, to adopt better conversational techniques....
There are not enough rolly-eyed icons in the universe to express my feelings about Dan's comments.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well... he deserves at least one scooby-snack for trying, don't you think? Even if he did slide back three or four steps for the one he took forward....
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteI still find your tone unduly condescending and conceited. Contrary to your pompous, self-righteous worldview, we don't "long for the sinful life", and never did. I see that you didn't learn diddly squat from my previous quotes from C.S. Lewis. Your pride won't even let you learn from your own Christian heros!
Therefore, I hope you don't mind if lace my reply with a bit of condescention as well. It's not persecuation, mind you, just reciprocation. Until you become enough of a "true Christian" to live by the Golden Rule, I will feel no obligation to show more consideration toward you than you show toward us.
... I lived the sinful life and didn’t want it anymore and I guess you just longed for it.
Speaking for myself, atheism sort of snuck up on me. I clung to my Christian beliefs as desperately and as long as I possibly could. Ultimately, however, I was simply unable to sustain belief in light of the preponderance of evidence before me. Nothing made any sense if God existed, but everthing made perfect sense if he didn't. Only when continued belief was no longer possible did I begin to identify myself as an atheist. I didn't make a choice to stop believing. I just lost the ability to believe in light of all that I knew. And I can't un-learn what I know.
I live a much cleaner life now than I did while I was a Christian. (Don't give me that "false conversion" nonsense--I was at least as much of a "true Christian" as you think you are.) But I don't credit my current atheism for my good behavior, I credit the normal maturation process.
Curiously, you don't appear to believe you were capable of maturing all by yourself, but that maturity had to be granted to you magically. Or, maybe you still lack maturity.
There is a variable that must connect all of you to the reason why you all fell away. Have you all talked about that? Did you find a common link such as strict parenting or no spankings or a longing for the missed sinning? ... Can we explore it a bit?
You're just dripping with condescention and false assumptions, here.
Anyway, some of us have talked about it, and so far as I can tell, the common link appears to be that we became serious enough about our faith to care whether or not each of the doctrines in which we believed were actually true. For Matt, it was when he realized that sending bears to maul 42 children was unconscionable, and needed an explanation his conscience could bear. For Tracie (if I understand correctly), it was when she began studying the origins of the Bible, and found them to be far more sketchy than she had assumed. For me, it was finally understanding the theology of salvation well enough that I had sufficient confidence ("faith") to seek accurate answers to unrelated theological questions. It was the intensity of our faith, our desire to become better Christians and better evangelists, to speak not with feigned certainty but with a solid foundation in facts--ultimately, to grow closer to God--that made us so eager to seek truth, fully confident that careful, honest investigation and scrutiny would only reinforce our preexisting beliefs. In short, our faith grew to the size of a mustard seed. Then, and only then, were we able to move the mountain of lies that blocked our view of the reality all around us, every day.
This is a big part of the reason I have come to regard most Christian evangelists as failing to take their task very seriously. They think it's all about putting on a good show for God, as if he won't know or care about the indifferent state of their heart--not actually trying to change anyone's mind, just "sowing seeds" haphazardly, without so much as bothering to check or prepare the soil. Those who do take evangelism seriously enough to try to win souls in earnest eventually stop to think: "How, exactly, do I know that what I am professing is true? How can I show others that it is true?" And that is where apostasy typically begins: caring more about truth than about putting on a disingenuous show for God.
The atheist equivalent of the famous Christian "Roman Road" appears to go something like this:
1) Recognize and humbly acknowledge that at least some of your religious beliefs may be mistaken. After all, you and your immediate sources are only human.
2) Commit to sorting truth from falsehood, no matter how embarrassing, uncomfortable or painful the process and conclusions may turn out to be. After all, surely a God worthy of worship would want you to commit to discovering truth, with all humility and integrity.
3) Bada bing, bada boom, yada yada yada... you're an atheist! (When did that happen?)
It all goes back to caring whether or not your beliefs are actually true. That's the catalyst. That's where it begins.
But don't worry, Dan--you don't appear to care enough yet! You're far too stuck on inflating your own ego to bother with such piffle as discovering and verifying truth!
I am curious for it seems the real devout atheists, such as you, are past Christians why is that?
This is an entirely separate question that probably has more to do with demographics than motives. The U.S. is about 70-85% Christian, so on average, about 70-85% of U.S. atheists are likely to have grown up in Christian homes.
Your use of the phrase "devout atheist" doesn't make much sense from our perspective. We're not committed to atheism, per se, we're committed to truth, and the truth is, so far, there do not appear to be any God or gods relevant to our universe. Most atheists--probably all of those whom I know--would cheerfully start believing in God's existence as soon as anyone could offer even a single shred of credible, verifiable, real-world evidence that God existed.
If by "devout" you mean "vocal", ex-Christians may have a motive for speaking out, simply due to understanding, better than those who have been atheists all their lives, just how detrimental the Christian mind-parasite really is. You have demonstrated very well the degree to which Christianity perverts one's moral conscience (thinking it's okay to worship an entity who can prevent, say, the rape of a child, but routinely doesn't) and so hobbles one's reasoning ability that believers routinely think willful ignorance and wishful thinking ("faith") are somehow preferable to healthy skepticism and verifiable knowledge, and irrational thought and behavior ("spiritual discernment") is somehow preferable to rational thought and behavior.
I mean, that's pretty messed up! Pretty much by definition, it doesn't make sense to choose irrationality over rationality! When was the last time you used your toothbrush to clean the toilet right before brushing your teeth, for no good reason? You don't choose to behave irrationally with regard to mere personal hygiene, so why do you favor irrationality when you believe your potentially immortal soul is at stake?
Why, Dan?
If you ever get around to taking your professed faith as seriously as you take your oral hygiene, you may begin to understand how we became atheists! We have very thoroughly considered reasons for disbelieving in the existence of any God or gods, whereas you still believe in God for no good reason!
Dan:
ReplyDeleteWhile I certainly can't answer for Matt, I think this may be a misrepresentation of Matt's story:
>It is strange how you were raised Christian and turned into an atheist and I was raised atheist and, with God guiding me, turned into a Christian. I lived the sinful life and didn’t want it anymore and I guess you just longed for it.
Unless my timeline is incorrect, Matt was actually a Christian during his time in the Navy and didn't become an atheist until sometime afterward. (Fairly recently, in fact.) So, it is more likely that he would have been one of the ones you and your buddies were "teasing." But Matt would have to clarify that.
And again, Matt has indicated pretty clearly, numerous times now, that his move toward atheism was the result of his personal studies, taken up in order to be able to support his Christian beliefs--not a rejection of his beliefs in order to pursue sin. I'm not sure if you've repeatedly overlooked his statements to this affect or if you're purposely ignoring them.
But if you're going to post, it would be the courteous thing to do to at least post to what someone _actually_ says--not what you wish they had said (but most especially when what you wish they would have said clearly conflicts with what they actually said).
Again--you don't communicate well, in good part because you fail to pay attention to what others actually say. You don't listen well.
Understanding a person does not mean you have to agree with them or adopt their stance. But if you keep insisting on telling people what you think they think--instead of actually paying attention to what they're explaining, clearly, to you that they _actually_ think, you cannot feign surprise that you don't get good reactions in return.
>There is a variable that must connect all of you to the reason why you all fell away...
ReplyDeleteActually, we didn't all "fall away"--some atheists were never Xians. Some were from other religions, some were never raised with any religion.
Absolutely I have explored with other exChristians why we left Xianity and eventually found atheism. The answer may not _always_ be the same--but it is often the case that of the atheist ex-Xians I know we are all very familiar with the Bible and were very invovled in our churches. Ultimiately it was information that led to the deconversions. You can read many atheist testimonials online and you will see this same trend. It's a very clear and common pattern.
In fact, I'm addressing that exact issue on the program, and spoke about it last week. When you look up Xian testimonials online to see "why I became a Xian"--you will find personal anecdotes and "feelings" or interpretations of specific events that the person believed to be god working through the natural world to affect their life (basically, an assumption).
When you look up ex-Xian atheist testimonials, the common thread is one of realizing that their belief was the result of half-truths and misinformation fed to them via their Xian network--especially apologist arguments.
This is no mystery. People themselves are happy to write about this--many do. I recommend you go and read some of these yourself and see if I'm not telling you the truth. Try googling, "Before I became a christian..." and "Why I became an atheist..." and see what you get.
As much as you wish it to be "I loved to do wicked things...," that's not what you'll find. Oddly, I'm wondering if you think we're all having orgies and lying to everyone and that we all have dead bodies under our floorboards?
What is this sin lust manifesting as in our lives? I do charity work. I'm married and faithful. I love my family and friends. If I want to pursue wickedness so badly--why aren't I engaging in wickedness? Shouldn't I be going overboard on the Hedonistic lifestyle? If I'm not, why not? It is because your theory that "love of sin" is what drives atheism is unfounded. AND all you have to do is read a few testimonials to see that you're ideas are incorrect.
The problem is that you've already heard people explain to you why they are atheists. But you don't believe it, because it conflicts with what you _wish_ the real reason would be. But, as always, believing it hard enough will not make it true. You don't understand atheism, and you make no honest effort to understand it. And you speak from ignorance on the topic--and to actual atheists, it clearly shows.
You're featured on Dawkins' site
ReplyDeleteThat's big time.
Alyx,
ReplyDeleteI guess it is a matter of interpretation. I tend to disagree with you here (based on Dan's past behavior), but I could definitely be wrong. After all, it is difficult to judge his sincerity without actually hearing his voice.
Stephen and Tracie are spot on as usual.
RD's site?
ReplyDeleteNice.
Your servers are about to get slammed!
Dearest Dan,
ReplyDeleteBravo, my good and faithful servant! Your persistent prejudice against the atheists is a credit to my name, and your unflagging Pride swells my breast with Pride also!
I am a bit disturbed, however, that you doubted the hand I had in my previous comment. Among the active commenters here, you alone believe I exist, and you alone believe in spiritual possession. Even my host believes she is writing this entirely of her own volition. You believe the Holy Spirit speaks through you. Why, then, do you doubt that I speak through those whom I choose to possess? You believe your words are God's words. Why do you assume my words are simply the ravings of some confused atheist?
I sincerely hope this does not mean that you have begun to think rationally! You know how badly reason interferes with my deceptive lies! I implore you, have faith!
In My Unholy Name,
Satan
”Dan, is this gloating or pride?”
ReplyDeleteSharing, I thought, but if you were to nail me down, gloating I suppose. But who said I was without sin? I am trying not to sin in my daily walk but I am human and fail. Do you make it a point Andrew not to sin or do you have no remorse? Alyx thanks for your input I do agree with your explanation.
”I am curious as to what you mean by longing for the sinful life.
What I meant is that I wanted to stop and run away from a sinful life and a former Christian, wanted to give up being holy with Christ for a worldly or sinful life. We all know the first Commandment "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND" Matthew 5:19 and Romans 7:12-14
What if the ”private revelations” were made by some 40 to 50 people pointing to the same result such in the Bible. How you just “write off” the fact that they all pointed to one thing in a span of 1500-2000 years and they did come true. For example Isaiah 53.
I listened to the show on the 18th and thanks that did clear up a lot of frustration on my part although I am saddened by all of it. I resent the remark that I just parrot Ray’s beliefs. I admit I use his techniques but I still have my own thoughts on things. I have been a Christian since age 23 (now 38) although I admit he helped me in witnessing which was almost nonexistent for those 15 years and he clarified things quite a bit. I do love Ray Comfort don’t be confused. I have witnessed to more people, with Ray’s help, in this past couple of years then the previous years combined.
Tracie I noticed you said “oh my Goodness” instead of what is said so much these days and the blasphemies on television. Thanks for not using God’s name in vain even though you do not believe in him. Maybe subconscious on your part, you think? (Doing the right thing that is)
I also had a sudden epiphany of God it was right after truly repenting for all the evil I have done in my life and to know and understood that I have been forgiven.
The Guy that called in that said “I never knew about atheism until your show.” You have his soul on your hands. He is a fan of your show and you will lead him “Away” from God even though you have no proof there is “No God” and that is shameful and very reckless.
I loved that poor lady caller who you were rude and snarky to and cut off multiple times and put her on hold who said prove there is evidence that there isn’t a God or the Bible is false. I know her pain believe me. I admit it is a little frustrating conversing to someone lets say, like Martin who spews out his mouth things like”Dan has been a complete disgrace. The guy is a simple fanatic. he is a troll, his disconnection from reality. clownish arguments. nonsensical disquisitions of Dan Marvin. most flagrant displays of ignorance and dishonesty I've seen from an evangelical in a long time. hopeless literary mishmash that is the Bible. Who knew that bullshit was such a compressible solid? Dan's packed more of it in those few sentences than can be dealt with using anything short of a high-pressure hose. Dan's scientific illiteracy earns him a knuckle-rapping with the big wooden ruler, and he's sent to the corner with the pointy hat. Cripes, does this man's stupidity know no end? his opinions can be dismissed as the ravings of a fanatic.” You may have ill will towards me because I say “you are of the devil” but I do not reciprocate those feelings. I am merely pointing out what our Lord is saying about you. As atheist your opinions are just that an opinion. You all are taking that position of there is no God based on “no evidence”, but there is “no evidence” that there is no God. The burden of proof is on you all not the other way around. There is the Bible and all of creation and the heavens out there to prove it; your proof of No God is based on what, lack of evidence? Very reckless my atheist believers.
People witnessed slavery and it did exist and people witnessed Jesus and he did exist. Sorry all, she as well as I are amazed at your lack of belief because the entire Bible is based on Faith and if you do not have it then you will lose the battle. That is what will happen and Satan and his followers will perish per God and Bible.
“slaves obey your masters” still exist today because we all have masters, or people in charge or defined as: directs the work of other or a person who has general authority over others, they are just called these days Bosses. Everybody has a boss or master. So if that is your argument then it is flimsy.
Why do you have grief of that grandma, why do you have a longing to stay alive? The mere fact that you want to live forever or at least live for a long time means there is something else after this. I can’t wait until this meaningless hate filled world is cleansed of the evil. We can agree to disagree, for now. Religion is bad and evil so stop confusing Christians and religions together. Atheism is a religion and as all religions, is of the devil. I don’t want to kill or hate anyone that is not Christian. I love all of you and do not wish harm to you; I want all of you saved and not believe in the lies. God is the judge of all and he will judge us
Stephen said ” It was the intensity of our faith, our desire to become better Christians and better evangelists, to speak not with feigned certainty but with a solid foundation in facts--ultimately, to grow closer to God--that made us so eager to seek truth, fully confident that careful, honest investigation and scrutiny would only reinforce our preexisting beliefs. In short, our faith grew to the size of a mustard seed. Then, and only then, were we able to move the mountain of lies that blocked our view of the reality all around us, every day.”
Why do you call it mountain of lies (I assume you are talking about the Bible) That mountain is based on faith so if you are truly trying to find the truth and find things are that vague or inconsistent then how can you leap to the aggressive point of “it’s all lies” when you just proclaimed that you had ”desire to become better Christians”? How can one conclude for instance, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Well since God didn’t tell me how he did it or prove to me he did it then it is all lies. Is your name Stephen? Well I don’t believe you. Are you boy or a girl? Well I don’t believe you! How does that make you feel, dude? With the removal of faith and trust the Bible is just a good story and loses all power and glory. Because men lie you jump to the conclusion that God lies. I assume or conclude; you never trusted or had faith in God in the first place, you always doubted. To question him is an insult. At age 15 I asked my Dad why I had to come home at 9pm instead of 10pm on a Saturday night. His reply was “because I said so, that’s why” and I didn’t like it, but I never thought, that man wasn’t my Dad or that I didn’t have to listen to him based on his answer. He had great reasons for it and told me later, when I was older, on why but “because I said so” was the only reason at that time. God is God and doesn’t owe us an explanation on anything we are to trust his authority because his authority is the only thing that matters, we don’t have to like it. God can kill or punish who he pleases because his authority is supreme, like my Dad’s authority at that time. My Dad’s authority was temporary until I grew up but God’s authority is for ALL TIMES. We are not to know all the why’s in life, and the reasons behind the authority, because that would make US Gods, if we have all knowledge. That is the same reason why Satan convinced Adam that he can be “God” also, Adam took from that “tree of knowledge” believing in that lie, such as all of you who believe they should have “evidence” of the knowledge.
We may just have to wait for that day of rapture and you will get your ”evidence” and then maybe you all will fight for our Lord. Remember it really doesn’t matter if you know who Jesus is; the thing that is very important is that if Jesus knows who you are. So when you understand there “IS” God then use your entire life’s energy to get the word out so Jesus will know who you are. Then we can all meet in heaven.
”After all, surely a God worthy of worship would want you to commit to discovering truth, with all humility and integrity.” In my opinion Stephen that is your mistake, that is not what God wants us to do, can you back that statement up scripturally? Remember he did NOT want us to eat from the “tree of Knowledge” he wanted us to TRUST him. What is the meaning of science oh yea “Knowledge”. Hmmm coincidence, I think not. Don’t you think God knew if we started finding out what made things work that we would eventually try to split atoms and make nuclear weapons to destroy each other. Look at the state we are in now. I can’t get a decent banana these days because of genetic engineering, compare a Dole banana to Chiquita (imported) go ahead I dare you. So let’s see how we’re doing; we are prolonging and crowding our existence and polluting the earth with advancement of technology and we are acting as Gods by creating more atom bombs then the next guy, not to mention cloning aborted babies and such, great job scientist. Again, people like Richard Dawkins and atheists are fools according to the Bible, can you see why?
God doesn’t rape children; men and woman do, remember that Stephen and you want to base your faith on mankind the one willing to do those horrible things to children. Don’t get me started on abortions either. Mankind is corrupt and God must “clean house” to correct the mindset. Remember I am not only pointing these things out to you all, it isn’t just atheist that will fill hell, if my own children rebel against God somehow or even believe in your rhetoric on your ill advised show, they will go to hell also so we all have a vested interest here.
From Tracie ”And you speak from ignorance on the topic--and to actual atheists, it clearly shows.” that is something I can reciprocate my feelings to. To Christians, your ignorance (of God) shows clearly as well.
For Him,
Dan
You all are taking that position of there is no God based on “no evidence”, but there is “no evidence” that there is no God. The burden of proof is on you all not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteWrong again, Dan. The burden of proof for a claim always rests upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question, not the person asking for further evidence. Again, read and learn about logical fallacies.
If you're arguing the position that there is no evidence there's no God, then you have to accept that there's no evidence the gods of every other religion don't exist either. So by your own stated position, you have no justification for not being as avid a believer in Shiva or Thor or Zeus or Osiris or Astarte as you are in your current God of choice. Hopefully this should even make its way through your thick skull just what an untenable position you've taken on how evidence works.
And, again, read my bullet points. When you fall back on "It's all based on faith," which you repeat ad nauseam here, you have lost. Period. We demand evidence, and the feeble justifications you have been using to prop up your beliefs all your life simply will not work here. And as you have already admitted your beliefs run "contrary to logic" and are in essence an entirely anti-intellectual enterprise, there really, truly is nothing at all worthwhile you can say to us. You have basically conceded that in order for us to believe as you do, we have to surrender our intellects and become stupid on purpose. As there is not a chance of that happening, there's nothing of value you can hope to accomplish.
To Christians, your ignorance (of God) shows clearly as well.
Well, if your God exists, he must be sorely disappointed in you for doing such a pathetic job of arguing for his existence.
So let’s see how we’re doing; we are prolonging and crowding our existence and polluting the earth with advancement of technology and we are acting as Gods by creating more atom bombs then the next guy, not to mention cloning aborted babies and such, great job scientist. Again, people like Richard Dawkins and atheists are fools according to the Bible, can you see why?
What I see is a babbling, uneducated idiot named Dan Marvin losing whatever tenuous grip on reality he's had left.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteFunny how you just used what you are auguring against as an example of proof. Hilarious buddy! The burden of proof for a claim always rests upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question or non existence who is making the rules? You or this guy named Dr. Michael C. Labossiere? Because I follow common sense not your logic I went looking for who this guy Labossiere is and to see if he is credible and the only thing I found is that: it may be a made up name and/or he made a D&D game of horror in honor of HP Lovecraft (an American author of fantasy, horror and science fiction who is a cult figure in the horror genre) for some demonic site called chaosium.com and his game here So you are basing your argument to logic on a demonic D&D game creator are you kidding or serious? Remember ” the claim “always” rest upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question” That is you my misguided friend, the thing in question is Dr. Michael C. Labossiere., prove he is credible to me then. Prove me wrong please, the burden is on you according to your logic so please pull through or use “your” common sense, instead of a D&D game maker. I thought the proof was in the pudding, from now on can I call you puddin? I suppose that was too snarky but your attitude towards me is sad. Lighten up, dude we are all here trying to figure life out. No one person has Proof of anything in concrete. ” What I see is a babbling, uneducated idiot named Dan Marvin losing whatever tenuous grip on reality he's had left. Prove it puddin!
Prove or answer this then. Why are we here? I would answer like this:
I just don’t know if there even will be free will in heaven. I know we won’t want to leave and be tempted to leave. We can appreciate Gods goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn’t know evil, Satan who didn’t know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate his goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate his goodness. The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his love, how else could he show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on his everlasting holiness; he endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, he suffers it, the imposition it is on his purity to display his wrath to the fullest extent, to put himself on everlasting display.
Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To give the text book answer, to glorify God and enjoy him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that’s it, this is the purpose of this entire universe.
God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7
We wouldn’t know how God is righteous as he is, everlastingly, and give him glory for it if it hadn’t had of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn’t know he’s loving as he is if it hadn’t been for sin, we wouldn’t know he’s holy if it weren’t for judgment.
How holy is God? So holy that he must send out of his presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, he did all of this in order that he might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify him for all that he is.
*paraphrased from Todd Friel and Dr. John Macarthur
Now your turn.
For Him,
Dan
But who said I was without sin? I am trying not to sin in my daily walk but I am human and fail.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to knowing people by their "fruits"? Are you a "false convert", or are you now admitting that even "true Christians" are just as capable of sinning as anyone else?
It seems to me that if I believed God existed and Bible theology was accurate, then the thing to do if I longed for the "sinful life" would be to remain a Christian. That way, I could sin as much as I wanted and still be assured a place in Heaven due to my salvation through faith in Jesus. The entire premise of your perception of why former Christians become atheists, is exactly backward!
What if the ”private revelations” were made by some 40 to 50 people pointing to the same result such in the Bible. How you just “write off” the fact that they all pointed to one thing in a span of 1500-2000 years and they did come true.
To understand this, consider how readily you have written off the millions of people over all of human history who have contributed to the highly self-consistent body of modern scientific knowledge--which is far more specific than the Bible in its predictions, with far more consistently accurate outcomes. If antiquity, multiple authorship, internal consistency and prophetic accuracy are your metrics for determining truth, you should abandon religion in favor of science immediately.
This is another example of giving your belief system a free pass that you would not grant to any other category of claims.
Thanks for not using God’s name in vain even though you do not believe in him.
The ironic thing is, you haven't even noticed how many times you have used God's name in vain. Every time you claim God says exactly what you happen to believe, you are applying God's name to yourself. That's not merely breaking a commandment, it's effectively claiming to be God! What vanity!
... you will lead him “Away” from God even though you have no proof there is “No God” and that is shameful and very reckless.
...
You all are taking that position of there is no God based on “no evidence”, but there is “no evidence” that there is no God. The burden of proof is on you all not the other way around. There is the Bible and all of creation and the heavens out there to prove it; your proof of No God is based on what, lack of evidence? Very reckless my atheist believers.
"Shameful" and "very reckless?" This, from a guy who actually advocates irrational thought and behavior!
As we have already pointed out many times, those who study the Bible and "all of creation and the heavens out there" the most closely are more likely than the general public to become atheists. Careful examination of the Bible is exactly what helped many of us realize just how badly our Christian leaders had lied to us about its origins and contents, and studying nature led many of us to realize how badly Creationists and other apologists had lied to us about the origins and properties of the universe.
Moreover, we do have at least three conclusive logical proofs that there is "no God" with the properties you wish to apply to your God. Let's review:
1. You believe God is supernatural, but there can be no "supernatural" entities, realms or events whatsoever which affect our universe in any meaningful way. If they ever did, they would immediately become directly or indirectly observable in nature, hence part of what we call "natural", hence no longer supernatural. Essentially by definition, supernatural "gods" are irrelevant with respect to our universe, and cannot "exist" within it while remaining supernatural. There is no supernatural God, QED.
2. You believe God is holy and cannot tolerate the presence of evil. Yet, you also believe our universe contains evil. If God cannot tolerate evil in his presence, and evil is present in the universe, then there is no holy God within our universe, QED.
3. You believe God is trustworthy, hence both powerful and benevolent. However, no God or gods are both able and willing to eradicate malaria or prevent child rape, therefore all logically possible deities are necessarily either unable or unwilling to interfere. If unable, they are irrelevant. If unwilling, they are either apathetic or malevolent. In no case can they be considered trustworthy. There is no trustworthy God, QED.
Not only have you failed to refute any of these proofs of God's non-existence, you have failed to even specify what kind of "God" you believe in. You throw that word around as if it means something, but based on your hemming and hawing with Tracie, it is clear that you don't even know what you believe. You have no certainty or even evidence of your God's existence, let alone his properties. We, however, can be certain that there is no supernatural, holy, or trustworthy God in our universe, which happens to be the only universe that appears to matter.
From our perspective, it is extremely shameful and reckless for you to promote an utter lie about the existence of something you don't even understand.
Why do you call it mountain of lies (I assume you are talking about the Bible)
The Bible does contain many lies, but it is hardly the only source of lies within Christianity. Fellow Christians, leaders and apologists also tell many lies, usually unwittingly, but sometimes deliberately. We have already caught you making several contradictory statements. (Do true Christians continue to sin, or are all Christians who sin, "false converts"? Is Hell reserved for those who behave badly regardless of what they believe, or for unbelievers regardless of how well they behave?) In those cases, one statement or the other must be a lie.
With the removal of faith and trust the Bible is just a good story and loses all power and glory.
Quite true. We have learned, through careful scrutiny, that the Bible is untrustworthy. Quoting the Bible at us is not an effective means of changing our minds. To us, it does not have anywhere near the power or glory you ascribe to it. You might as well quote from a book about leprechauns.
The Bible isn't even a particularly "good story". The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, for example, has considerably better character development, and a far more coehsive plot. That's not saying much, because the plots of those stories are deliberately absurd!
To question him [God] is an insult.
Why? Why does it bother your God so much for people to even wonder whether or not claims about him are actually true? If I were a truthful deity, I would welcome and even encourage questions about me, because I would have nothing to hide. What does your God have to hide that he would be so fearful of mere questions?
God is God and doesn’t owe us an explanation on anything we are to trust his authority because his authority is the only thing that matters, we don’t have to like it. God can kill or punish who he pleases because his authority is supreme,
To understand the absurdity of this argument, simply replace "God" with "Satan" and see if you still consider it compelling.
”After all, surely a God worthy of worship would want you to commit to discovering truth, with all humility and integrity.”
In my opinion Stephen that is your mistake, that is not what God wants us to do, can you back that statement up scripturally? Remember he did NOT want us to eat from the “tree of Knowledge” he wanted us to TRUST him. What is the meaning of science oh yea “Knowledge”. Hmmm coincidence, I think not.
Here, the absurdity of your lie-based worldview is laid bare. You are very clearly and very directly advocating willful ignorance over knowledge, and perpetuation of lies over discovery of truth. Of course I can scripturally back my claim that truth is preferable to lies, but there is no need to go so far. The preferability of truth is self-evident to anyone and everyone whose mind and moral conscience are not already buried under, and suffocated by, a mountain of lies.
Let the permanent public record show: By his own admission, Dan Marvin is an ignorant liar, and proud of it.
Dan really is the gift that keeps on giving. He actually gets stupider with every post he makes! One of these days he's going to collapse into a black hole of stupidity and disappear from the face of the earth.
ReplyDeleteGet a load of this retarded blather:
Dan: So you are basing your argument to logic on a demonic D&D game creator are you kidding or serious?
Dan Dan Dan. Every time I think you're as stupid as you can get, you just get stupider. Ever hear of a little thing called Google? All you have to do is enter the term "logical fallacies" and start there. So I gave one link from one particular website. I could have just as easily linked here, here, here, or here. Dan decided he'd amaze me with his brilliance by finding out what he could about the author of the page I happened to link to, as if this were the only source on the web providing information about logical fallacies.
Now, allow us all to bask in just how gloriously foolish Dan is. He finds a PDF that displays — shock! horror! think of the children! — that Michael C. Labossiere, the author of the page on fallacies I linked to, designs RPG campaigns. Apparently, this little hobby is enough to render Dr Labossiere unqualified to speak on the subject of logic, says that master logician Dan Marvin! If you want to be an expert on logic, apparently you cannot have a hobby that involves role playing games.
Never mind, of course, that Michael C. Labossiere also happens to be a professor of philosophy at Florida A&M University. Just a little detail ol' Dan missed in his brilliant detective work. Sigh. If Dan only had a brain, he could learn to use Google, where the above page comes up first when you type in Dr. Labossiere's name.
Now, people out there with brains (you know, those of you not named Dan Marvin), may well ask, "What does the fact that Dr. Labossiere likes gaming and is a Lovecraft fan have to do with his expertise on the subject of logic?" And the answer is, of course, nothing.
What we have witnessed here is another showstopping performance in stupidity from Dan Marvin, who, in his effort to demonstrate that Dr. Labossiere is not an authority on logical fallacies, committed another logical fallacy! Isn't that great!? I mean, it's like Dan just walks up to us, hands us a baseball bat, and practically begs us to hit him with it. I honestly haven't encountered an evangelical who was so thick and made it so easy to just pile on him, even thinking back to my days on the TV show.
Dan: I suppose that was too snarky but your attitude towards me is sad.
What can I say. Militant, pathological idiocy brings out the worst in me. Be less of an idiot, and I'll stop treating you like one.
Dan: Lighten up, dude we are all here trying to figure life out.
No dude. You are here telling us we'll spend eternity being tortured if we don't join the Jesus Fan Club. You have not, however, made a convincing case, though you've been here for weeks essentially repeating yourself. I see no effort on your part to "figure life out," or figure much of anything out at all. By your own admission, you prefer the fog of "faith" to the clarity of knowledge.
Anyway, I do believe I've met my burden of proof in showing that Dr. Labossiere is qualified to write about logical fallacies. Now Dan, back to you. About this "God" you keep talking about...?
Dan Marvin, prokaryotic lifeform: God is God and doesn't owe us an explanation on anything we are to trust his authority because his authority is the only thing that matters, we don't have to like it. God can kill or punish who he pleases because his authority is supreme,
ReplyDeleteStephen, sentient being: To understand the absurdity of this argument, simply replace "God" with "Satan" and see if you still consider it compelling.
Or "Adolf Hitler." And it's not an argument, simply another vacuous declaration and a disgusting capitulation to the concept of mindless slavishness to authoritarianism.
Onto Dan's jab at me:
ReplyDeleteI said:
”Dan, is this gloating or pride?”
Dan said:
Sharing, I thought, but if you were to nail me down, gloating I suppose.
First you say you were sharing, and then you admit you were gloating in the SAME sentence. You can add liar to that list-o-sins.
Dan continues:
But who said I was without sin? I am trying not to sin in my daily walk but I am human and fail.
The "we're all human" cop out, ehh? People only say this when they do something wrong. If there is one thing I learned in the Army, it's that excuses aren't worth shit. When you fuck up, you take the blame. Excuses only get you in more trouble and make you look like a shitbag to your soldiers and commanders.
To sum up: Dan has admitted that he was gloating, and that it was wrong from his point of view.
Dan goes on:
Do you make it a point Andrew not to sin or do you have no remorse?
I don't believe in sin in the context you do, Dan. You know that. I believe that I can do right things and wrong things. Of course, I try to always do the right thing.
Dan finishes up:
Alyx thanks for your input I do agree with your explanation.
What? Let's look at Alyx's explanation again:
I took that as Dan trying to establish a commonality and mutual empathy with Matt, not as boasting.
I say again, Dan: What? You agree with that after you just said (scroll up) that you were wrong? Boasting and Gloating may not be exact synonyms, but they are pretty close.
Thanks Dan. You lied multiple times in a single paragraph. This is not helping your already dismally low reputation.
Dan, while you're at it, you can add arrogance (another prideful sin) to that list of yours too. You’re really raking ‘em in!
Thanks for not using God’s name in vain even though you do not believe in him. Maybe subconscious on your part, you think? (Doing the right thing that is)
ReplyDeleteFirst, "God" is a title, not a name. Taking God's name in vain means shouting "Jehovah" or "Elohim" or "Yahweh" outside of specific ceremonies.
Second, I imagine Tracie didn't say "God" because she doesn't believe in God, not because she's following your archaic censorship commandment. If she had said "Oh my God," a theist could have said "aha! So you do acknowledge God's existence!" I'm sure Tracie's seen it before; I know I have.
The burden of proof is on you all not the other way around. There is the Bible and all of creation and the heavens out there to prove it; your proof of No God is based on what, lack of evidence? Very reckless my atheist believers.
Dan, quite simply, you're wrong.
In a criminal trial, the suspect is considered innocent until the prosecution can prove his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The null hypothesis ("The defendent did not do X") is always assumed until the positive claim ("The defendent did X") is proved.
The reason for this is that, while it is possible to prove a positive claim, it is rarely possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something did not occur. How do you provide forensic evidence that something didn't happen?
Science works the same way, as do all logical pursuits. We assume the null hypothesis, because proving a negative is nearly impossible. If I say "unicorns exist," the only way to prove me wrong is by scouring the entire universe for unicorns, and finding none. If I then say "well, they're invisible" or "they can hear you coming, and they run away so you don't see them," then the parameters of the search must again be changed. Should we therefore assume that unicorns do exist, when the only positive evidence is my say-so? No, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. If I want to back up my statement that unicorns exist, then it's up to me to produce the unicorn. Not only is it more valid and less subject to goalpost moving, but it's easier than trying to search the entire universe.
So it is with God. It's not up to us to prove God's nonexistence. Theists have already defined him in such a way that even scouring the entire universe isn't enough, because he exists outside it, or something. No, it's up to those claiming that God exists to provide evidence.
The Bible is a book. At most, it is proof that several Jewish tribes transcribed their beliefs over a few centuries. It is proof of its claims only inasmuch as "The Iliad" is proof of Zeus and Hera, or "Harry Potter" is proof of a school of wizards in Britain.
And given the number of holy books in the world and the number of creation myths and the number of deities, it's ridiculous to say that "all of creation" is proof of your specific god. Really? It's not proof of Gaea? Or Odin? Or Ra? What specifically about the universe suggests that your creation story is more true than anyone else's?
Furthermore, if it's up to us nonbelievers to disprove Jehovah, then it's up to us to disprove all gods. After all, we have equal reason to assume that your god exists as we do for Allah and Osiris and Thor. If the burden of proof is on the nonbeliever, if we're to accept the existence of your God as true until proven false, then we must do the same with all gods. I assume you don't believe in the existence of Thor, Dan. Do you have proof of his nonexistence?
The mere fact that you want to live forever or at least live for a long time means there is something else after this.
Yeabuhwha? I would think that if there were something better after this, it'd be a good reason not to stay alive a long time. Why prolong your stay on this fallen Earth if you could be with God in Heaven right now?
No, the desire to stay alive for a long time is much better indication that this world is all there is and this life is all you've got, and that you ought to make the most of it while you can.
Atheism is a religion and as all religions, is of the devil.
And baldness is a hairstyle, and an empty glass is a refreshing beverage.
I can’t get a decent banana these days because of genetic engineering, compare a Dole banana to Chiquita (imported) go ahead I dare you.
The only reason you have edible bananas is because of genetic engineering. Wild bananas are small, hard, and full of seeds.
I realize that Martin and Stephen covered most of this, but honestly, Dan, do you even recognize the consequences of the things you say?
>Tracie I noticed you said “oh my Goodness” instead of what is said so much these days and the blasphemies on television. Thanks for not using God’s name in vain even though you do not believe in him. Maybe subconscious on your part, you think? (Doing the right thing that is)
ReplyDeleteActually it was very conscious. Many atheists don’t agree with language structure that incorporates god, such as “God bless you” after a sneeze. I try to be sensitive to that. I don’t give words power.
>The Guy that called in that said “I never knew about atheism until your show.” You have his soul on your hands. He is a fan of your show and you will lead him “Away” from God even though you have no proof there is “No God” and that is shameful and very reckless.
I do not believe in souls. But I very much believe that everyone is accountable for themselves. I am not responsible for someone else’s decisions or beliefs. I certainly do not give myself that sort of credit for having power over anyone else’s thoughts, beliefs or actions. That would be a highly codependent attitude. I have not lied to anyone. I provide information. How people interpret that information is up to them.
I have no proof there is no god, you are right. And I have no proof there are no leprechauns, as well. I do not see that as a reason to believe in leprechauns. What I need to believe in leprechauns would be manifestation of leprechauns. And I need no more or less from “god” or from a germ. Again, if a thing exists, it manifests. If a thing does not exist, it does not manifest. Your god does not appear to manifest. So, he does not appear to exist at this time. If you disagree, you need to define what you mean by “exist,” because I don’t think we’re using that word in the same way. Or you need to point to your god’s manifestation. And it must be independently verifiable. Personal interpretation doesn’t work, because people can be, and have been, wrong en masse, as far as their interpretations of what they experience personally (or even in groups).
>I loved that poor lady caller who you were rude and snarky to and cut off multiple times and put her on hold who said prove there is evidence that there isn’t a God or the Bible is false.
Please explain how I was rude and snarky. I did not call her any names. I was not sarcastic. I even told her that her “feelings” are valid—because they are truly her feelings. I’m afraid I’m unfamiliar with your definition of “rude” and “snarky.” I thought I was very respectful. She called in to ask why I thought believers believe for emotional reasons. I asked her if she believed her Bible because if “feels” right to her. She answered “yes,” thus proving that she is right in line with my point. I also told her I brought in a number of testimonies written by Xians themselves, as well as testimonies from atheists.
The reason Matt cut her off (I have no power over the phones on the show) was that she was asking numerous questions and not allowing time for us to answer. When she got to the fourth, or so, question, we had to stop her so that we could begin to address her questions. Matt made a point to tell her that we had not hung up on her, but only put her on hold to give us time to reply. And he put her back on once we were done answering. I normally ask Matt not to cut off calls, but this was one of the few cases where I felt he had no real choice if there was to be any chance of a two-way conversation.
In fact, on a separate list, someone else wrote in to tell us how patient we were with her, and how difficult it must have been to try to communicate with someone who didn’t give us a chance to reply while asking question after question.
Again—if you can pinpoint where I was rude to her, I’d be interested in knowing how you viewed that.
>I know her pain believe me. I admit it is a little frustrating conversing to someone lets say, like Martin who spews out his mouth things like”Dan has been a complete disgrace. The guy is a simple fanatic. he is a troll, his disconnection from reality. clownish arguments. nonsensical disquisitions of Dan Marvin. most flagrant displays of ignorance and dishonesty I've seen from an evangelical in a long time. hopeless literary mishmash that is the Bible. Who knew that bullshit was such a compressible solid? Dan's packed more of it in those few sentences than can be dealt with using anything short of a high-pressure hose. Dan's scientific illiteracy earns him a knuckle-rapping with the big wooden ruler, and he's sent to the corner with the pointy hat. Cripes, does this man's stupidity know no end? his opinions can be dismissed as the ravings of a fanatic.”
>You may have ill will towards me because I say “you are of the devil” but I do not reciprocate those feelings. I am merely pointing out what our Lord is saying about you. As atheist your opinions are just that an opinion. You all are taking that position of there is no God based on “no evidence”, but there is “no evidence” that there is no God. The burden of proof is on you all not the other way around.
I cannot speak for Martin. His feelings or responses are his own. But I have no ill will toward anyone. I also do not believe you speak for or represent any deities. Your claim that we need to believe things without evidence until they are disproven is dishonest and hypocritical. If you actually believed this, you would believe in leprechauns, fairies, big foot, alien abduction, telepathy, crystal power, and much, much more that is considered the realm of the most gullible in our society. None of these things has ever been conclusively disproved, either. It is considered to be in the realm of fantasy simply because there is no conclusive proof of any of it. But you grant your god special status. You know as well as anyone else that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Humors, for example, don’t “exist” until someone disproves them. They don’t exist until someone can prove them. And accepting the claims of Humors causing illness stood in the way of real medical progress for how many years? Believing unproven assertions stops real progress from getting through.
>There is the Bible
That you say is created by god, because men told you it was created by god, and wrote and revised the books and stories to make “prophecies”—and this convinces you. We read from the forgeries on one program, and not 20 minutes later got a call from someone who asked, incredulously, “Do you think people just made this stuff up?” My response, of course, was yes. Not only do I believe it, but there is no other explanation for older copies of Bible books containing LESS information than the later ones, from which the Bible was translated. Yes, they “made this stuff up.” And they clearly revised it, at will. There’s no proof of authorship. And the only reason there are “inspired” and “apocryphal” books is because people over quite a long period took the liberty of claiming they knew god wanted them to make a Bible. The end result are at least three “inspired” versions, which contain different texts and are used by different Xians—the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the one you use.
> and all of creation and the heavens out there to prove it;
The universe exists. No doubt. Claiming god put it there is unsubstantiated.
You see the universe manifesting, you know it’s there. You say you know god is there—where is god’s manifestation?
>your proof of No God is based on what, lack of evidence? Very reckless my atheist believers.
Again—do you believe in leprechauns? If not, why not? Lack of evidence. I don’t believe in them due to lack of evidence. Therefore I am consistent. No leprechaun manifestation. No leprechauns. No god manifestation, no god. You believe in god in spite of a lack of manifestation. You disbelieve leprechauns due to lack of manifestation.
>People witnessed slavery and it did exist and people witnessed Jesus and he did exist.
We have far more than witnesses to slavery. We have children of slaves. We have public records of slaves and slave owners. Where are the children and public records of Jesus? You have books written by unknown (and often unidentified) authors, including forged material, that you think are reliable for some reason. Jesus himself, unfortunately, didn’t leave any written records.
>Sorry all, she as well as I are amazed at your lack of belief because the entire Bible is based on Faith and if you do not have it then you will lose the battle.
No need to apologize. And again—no one needs faith to see something that exists. What do you mean by “existence”? I thought existence was about manifesting things. You clearly mean something else. Maybe, by your definition of “exist” and “existence” god does exist. I can’t tell, because I’m just using the standard definition of “all the things that manifest.” We discussed ideas existing, as being comparable to god’s existence, but I think you and I ruled that out. Chairs exist. Germs exist. Oxygen exists. All of these things can be isolated and shown to manifest. Can you do this with your god or not? If not, then, by my definition, he does not exist. If you have another definition of existence and what it means, please feel free to explain it.
>That is what will happen and Satan and his followers will perish per God and Bible.
I understand you believe this.
>“slaves obey your masters” still exist today because we all have masters, or people in charge or defined as: directs the work of other or a person who has general authority over others, they are just called these days Bosses. Everybody has a boss or master. So if that is your argument then it is flimsy.
So, you think slaves and employees are the same thing? I believe that you understand that at the time this was written, there were actual slaves in Rome. What would make you think an audience at that time wouldn’t relate “slave” to actual “slaves”? Trying to force it to fit today’s “employee” situation is really just completely ignoring the context and intended audience of the time in which it was written.
>Why do you have grief of that grandma, why do you have a longing to stay alive? The mere fact that you want to live forever or at least live for a long time means there is something else after this. I can’t wait until this meaningless hate filled world is cleansed of the evil. We can agree to disagree, for now. Religion is bad and evil so stop confusing Christians and religions together. Atheism is a religion and as all religions, is of the devil. I don’t want to kill or hate anyone that is not Christian. I love all of you and do not wish harm to you; I want all of you saved and not believe in the lies. God is the judge of all and he will judge us
This was in response to something Matt said, so I’m assuming my portion of the reply is done at this point.
I've been a bit busy, so I completely missed the fact that Dan addressed me directly.
ReplyDelete"I was on FFG-25 USS Copeland I was a #1 Pilot Rescue Swimmer, LSE, Master Helmsman, and Training Officer. How about you?"
I started in the Nuclear Power program, moved on to be LPO of First Division (after a few years) on an aircraft carrier (CVN-71) and later I spent a few years with the Seabees at PHIBCB-2 as Division lead and 3-M Coordinator. I won't rattle off awards and certification, but you've got me beat on the Master Helmsman - I was one unrep short when I took over as LPO and left the watch rotation.
"Then when I got out and was 23 when my career was in a downward spiral I read the bible like a book and was changed forever."
What a remarkable similarity! After reading the Bible many times, I finally read it as a book - and my life was changed too. I recognized that it was full of contradictions, immoral commands, unjust actions, divisive dogma and tons of claims that simply weren't supported by reason or evidence.
"It is strange how you were raised Christian and turned into an atheist and I was raised atheist and, with God guiding me, turned into a Christian."
Why is that strange? What I find strange is that you seem to think that your atheism was remotely similar to my own. As far as I can tell, you were a 'default atheist'. Your atheism wasn't based on rational evaluation of evidence - it was purely emotional. You not only admit this, you must admit this - because admitting that atheism has a rational basis destroys any hope of claiming that your new beliefs do.
Not only were you an atheist for all the wrong reasons, you were apparently the type of atheist that continues to give the rest of us a bad name. You were a dick.
I've never teased anyone for not going out to have a drink - regardless of their religious beliefs. You've made yet another strawman link; Christians are no fun and don't drink.
I guess AA is doing well pushing their doctrine to all those atheist drunks.
"I lived the sinful life and didn’t want it anymore and I guess you just longed for it."
Thanks for the insult, proving that you're still the same dick you were when you were an "atheist". Here's an idea, why don't you stop "guessing" and start thinking.
I didn't long for a sinful life and I don't feel that I'm leading one now (in the immoral sense of the word, as I reject the notion of "sin"). I studied with the intent of strengthening my faith and becoming a minister. My goal was to find ways to demonstrate the truth of Christianity to others and lead them to Christ. I took 1 Peter 3:15 seriously.
The result of my studies was unexpected and exactly opposite of my goals. However, I had no choice but to accept the conclusion dictated by reason and evidence.
You are very different. You were an atheist because it's what you wanted - and when you found life getting difficult you went looking for something else - and found it.
Instead of analyzing the evidence and going where it leads, you went exactly where you wanted to go and considered only those things that supported your preconceived notions and desires. You found what you wanted to find...both times.
Instead of taking 1 Peter 3:15 seriously, you use it as an excuse to harrass folks with nonsense.
As a former Christian, you were easy to peg from the start. You have no original thoughts, you simply quote the tired arguments of other apologists. You've convinced you're in it for the glory of your lord, but I'm well aware that you're simply doing it because you need to feel that you're doing something - you've latched on to the notion that if you're doing it right, you'll be persecuted - so you make sure that you push just hard enough to get that sort of result. Despite the fact that your notion of "persecution" is as far from the mark as your notion of "evidence".
It's a self-reinforcing delusion that supports your own desires - not your beliefs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you sincerly believe... but you have no interest in learning, your mind is closed and you're on auto-pilot, hoping that God doesn't see through your posturing. You're desperately trying to qualify for the reward you already think you're getting - and desperately waiting for God's wrath to lay waste to those whose understanding exceeds your own.
Because we're smug and arrogant and sinful and we deny the beliefs you think are true. Someday you may recognize that the true smugness and arrogance are your own and you simply shrug it off on the shoulders of an invisible friend out of fear and insecurity. Someday you'll realize that the true "sin" is in accepting a divisive, immoral belief system because it makes you feel special.
"I can’t even tell you how many atheists I talk to, such as all of you, started Christian. There has to be a correlation between the two. There is a variable that must connect all of you to the reason why you all fell away. Have you all talked about that?"
Yup and it turns out that it's very simple. We all decided to actually care whether or not our beliefs were true. We all accepted that we should only believe things based on good evidence and sound reason.
We realized that the justification for Christianity was, for all intents and purposes, identical to the justification for any religion or supernatural claim.
We all have some process that our brain uses to analyze claims and distinguish fact from fiction. Some of us have decided to hone that to the point that it's actually effective.
You haven't.
You're the same person you were before, you've just put on a new mask and have decided that you're willing to give credit for your achievements to a God, as long as it means you're not required to take responsibility for your previous actions. That's not the bargain you think it is. It turns you into a willing victim - a puppet of a dogmatic machine. You've given up the very thing that makes you, you. You have "died unto yourself" - without ever wondering if that's really wise or justified and you compound the error by doing it for selfish reasons.
I'd prefer to take responsibility and credit as they are deserved. I'd prefer to deal with reality head-on, rather than hiding behind myths and superstition. I'd rather explore the world, learn whatever I can, appreciate beauty for its own sake, do good for the sake of doing good and avoid doing harm because it's harmful. No stick or carrot required.
I prefer to treat people right the first time, to base decisions on evidence, to reject divisive, immoral dogma. My ability to understand someone and learn from them isn't colored by race, creed, sex or sexual orientation.
You begin with the assumption that I'm an atheist because I wanted to be immoral - because you enjoyed being immoral while you were an atheist. You begin with that prejudice, born of ignorance - a prejudice which is reinforced by the dogma you accept.
There may be some similar elements in our story, but please don't equate my pursuit for understanding and truth with your own base desire to be comfortable without understanding.
So, you think slaves and employees are the same thing?
ReplyDeleteHeh... Dan's obviously worked in customer service.
Stephen, my confused friend, was there ever a time I said that Christians do not sin? Are you kidding? We all sin and fall short Romans 3:23
ReplyDeleteI am a wretched sinner and deserve hell. The difference is non Christians run to sin or take pleasure in sinning. For example a Christian would not fornicate because it is against God’s will although the urges are there God gives us the strength to overcome the sinning. Now an atheist 17 yr old would have no problems at all fornicating because it feels good and nothing is holding him back. An atheist would say lies are ok a Christian wouldn’t want to lie. An atheist may love his porn collection but a Christian that sees filth on TV would close his eyes and change the channel. An atheist would “camp out” in porno of the mind and lust after a pretty girl and the second the thought gets into the Christians mind he thinks of other things right away and will not entertain or “camp out” with lust. You are born again into a new heart. If we fail and do sin (tell a lie or whatever) then we repent and start a new and not try to sin again. If we continue to sin or willing to sin and have no remorse or repentance then you are called a false convert. By the way the two examples of people could have been the same person, umm lets say me! The effort to change and repent is huge. But it is not by works that saved us, it is God’s grace because we all sin, every last one of us.
”The ironic thing is, you haven't even noticed how many times you have used God's name in vain. Every time you claim God says exactly what you happen to believe, you are applying God's name to yourself.” First that isn’t true if I say my god would never send people to hell I would be right because “my god” is a figment of my imagination and does not exist. That’s breaking the 2nd Commandment not the 3rd Commandment. If I am quoting the bible you mean? Or do you mean when you ask me my opinion on something like “what is heaven like” Well I can not know what heaven is like so I speculate what it might be like. Provide an example please, puddin!
”Moreover, we do have at least three conclusive logical proofs that there is "no God" with the properties you wish to apply to your God. Let's review:”
I understand your points, but to repeat myself to refute all of what you just said I submit from my last post: “I just don’t know if there even will be free will in heaven. I know we won’t want to leave and be tempted to leave. We can appreciate Gods goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn’t know evil, Satan who didn’t know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate his goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate his goodness. The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his love, how else could he show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on his everlasting holiness; he endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, he suffers it, the imposition it is on his purity to display his wrath to the fullest extent, to put himself on everlasting display.
Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To give the text book answer, to glorify God and enjoy him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that’s it, this is the purpose of this entire universe.
God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7
We wouldn’t know how God is righteous as he is, everlastingly, and give him glory for it if it hadn’t had of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn’t know he’s loving as he is if it hadn’t been for sin, we wouldn’t know he’s holy if it weren’t for judgment.
How holy is God? So holy that he must send out of his presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, he did all of this in order that he might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify him for all that he is.”
”The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, for example, has considerably better character development, and a far more cohesive plot.”
But it will never save you from the eternal lake of fire. Just a moot point.
”Of course I can scripturally back my claim that truth is preferable to lies, but there is no need to go so far.” Prove it, puddin! Prove that science, or the pursuit there of, is desired by God for us to seek then the Truth of the Lord. I will admit I am wrong if you do. If I am confused about God’s message then please be a friend and point me in the right direction.
So Martin you gave me a site explaining this Labossiere dude, thanks that was what I was looking for, but could not find it I will take your extra ribbing for that I am a smiling big boy. After further research we come up with this: “However, Aristotle's teacher, Plato, deserves credit for being the first philosopher to collect examples of bad reasoning.” Not a huge fan of Plato but that is irrelevant.
One of the sites you gave me was labeled “Shifting the Burden of Proof” as in “how to be a spin doctor.” Besides that, the real funny part of all this is how one of the examples is the exact example that you all are using, it states:
Hundreds of years ago, scientists made the same claim against bacteria – “I don’t see it, so it must not exist. These early skeptics fell into the trap of appealing to their own ignorance – another type of fallacy.”
I submit this:
For hundreds of years, atheists made the same claim against God – “I don’t see it, so it must not exist. These early skeptics fell into the trap of appealing to their own ignorance – another type of fallacy.”
This is whole premise of most of the augments of this Atheist Experience blog is based on that argument or should I say fallacy. Now that is comedy. Not to be mean, but to show what the Bible says. God is the final authority, not man.
You also linked to here Fallacy: Ad Hominem Now this is the pot calling the kettle black my friend the hypocrisy here is thick. Do I need to prove my point here. Just let me know and I will show how many times you used this technique of:
1. Person A(Dan) makes claim X.
2. Person B(Martin) makes an attack on person A(Dan).
3. Therefore A’s(Dan's) claim is false.
But I will move on. I still love you enough to tell you that you stink because only a friend will tell a friend he stinks. Andrew is even doing it in his next response
“You are here telling us we'll spend eternity being tortured if we don't join the Jesus Fan Club.”
Most all of the things throughout this blog that you have said against me is examples of straw man arguments. Your, or was it, Stephen’s argument that there can be no way there is a God because of presence of evil. God could not make it easier for us to know him and know what he has done for us. Because of the presence of evil is not an argument of there must be no God in fact it proves his existence and his grace.
On to Andrew,
” I don't believe in sin in the context you do, Dan. You know that. I believe that I can do right things and wrong things. Of course, I try to always do the right thing. Have you ever lied, stolen or lusted? It doesn’t matter what you believe what matters is the truth. Just because you don’t “believe” in sin doesn’t mean you are not doing it. You sinned in your last response, look at Ephesians 4:29, James 3:8-12,1 Peter 3:10
as Martin pointed out you are using mostly Ad Hominem Fallacies.
I can be the most wretched man on earth but that does not negate the fact that there is a God and his authority reigns over us all. I am trying, although I could be doing a better job, to be fair and civil in these discussions, are you? I am relaying to you God’s word and you are spitting at me and God. Straw man, ad hominem and all sorts of logical fallacies here from you all at this blog. You are all cute and I want to hug every one of you. I would like tell you it will be alright but unfortunately for most of you it will not be alright but that is not for me to decide that is up to God to change your hearts. Please understand it truly is God’s messages not mine or Ray’s or Todd’s or John’s, please understand God’s good news, not ours. Never trust in man always trust God and his word. You are all saying there is no God so PROVE IT; keep in mind the ignorance fallacy.
Oops Tracie and others chimes in before I could send this off so let’s move on to her comments.
First Tom’s it is rarely possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something did not occur. How do you provide evidence that something didn't happen? I couldn’t have put it better. Thanks, Tom. You are all claiming there is no God and you can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, Jesus and creation did not occur. So stop it. God may exist, so leave it alone close your AE shop and stop calling yourselves atheists because you are fighting a battle that can’t be won. Prosecution rests. “The only reason you have edible bananas is because of genetic engineering. Wild bananas are small, hard, and full of seeds. Yuck, a good point I can’t refute, Ah but wait the burden of proof is on you prove that banana’s were not edible by man without genetic engineering.
”I don’t give words power.” Are you sure about this? You place no value in language? Are you post modern? The Declaration of Independence is just a piece of paper, huh?
“I do not believe in souls.” Again your ignorance is not an argument, it is a fallacy.
”I am not responsible for someone else’s decisions or beliefs. I certainly do not give myself that sort of credit for having power over anyone else’s thoughts, beliefs or actions.”Kind of reckless, to be in your position, to say this I think. Not claiming you would but to just prove a point, if you tell a blind man to follow you and you lead him to a cliff and he goes over would you be a murderer or wouldn’t you be responsible? What if you convince a kid to drink anti-freeze? What you say to someone has an effect on their outcome, do you agree. If you flip the bird to someone on the highway and cuss at him and get him furious and he goes home and stabs his dog would you feel somewhat responsible. What if you convince thousands that there is no God to find out there is, how about then?
”I have not lied to anyone” Really ever? Never to your parents or yourself even? Never ever even once, you are saying?
”I have no proof there is no god, you are right.” Hold on let me breath this one in. Ahhhh, thank you for admitting this and being honest. So you are not an Atheist then, right?
a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God
”So, you think slaves and employees are the same thing?” After reflecting on this later on, No I don’t. I was trying to relate a situation to today’s time and standards. What flashed in my head is our own slaves here in the US and I would hate to think that people would believe that I thought that they were just employees of the time but they weren’t, they were beaten downtrodden slaves. The bible did say masters be kind to your slaves so the US failed immensely at that.
I think I posed this to Stephen earlier but lets say you did find proof but at a price. Lets say the government bans Christianity and whoever is caught preaching would be tortured and limbs would be removed and such, real painful things. But God manifests himself to you and you have no doubt( you define what would it take, independently verifiable by the hundreds) and he tells you to preach to the world that he does exist. He appoints you because of all of the past damage that you have done with your AE show and all. Would you follow God or the Government, would you endure persecution in the name of God then? (BTW this is what really did happen to Saul/Paul and he was tortured the most I think.)
”Please explain how I was rude…” is cutting someone off in mid thought or mid sentence and placing her on hold while you get to say all that you wanted, rude to you? It is to me. Ohhhh wait you said its Matt’s fault, ok then you were not rude to her.
”fairies, big foot,..None of these things has ever been conclusively disproved, either.” from your stand point of prove a God otherwise he doesn’t exist I agree. But using the AE rules of engagement, ignorance fallacy in not an argument. Are your points moot then?
”That you say is created by god, because men told you it was created by god, and wrote and revised the books and stories to make “prophecies”—and this convinces you.” Again burden of proof is on your part you must prove to me that man wrote and revised (instead of translated) stories to make prophecies, show me evidence of this did you read a “story” on this or were you there? “The burden of proof for a claim always rests upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question” In this case the existence of things is the proof of men making things up to write the bible. These broad sweeping unsubstantiated claims are reckless.
”You see the universe manifesting, you know it’s there. You say you know god is there—where is god’s manifestation?” I know for a fact you will hate this answer but it is truth as I see it. Proof of God: If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator.
Our ignorance of the how and why does not excuse us from believing in a creator. Again you are claiming an ignorance fallacy.
”I don’t believe in them due to lack of evidence. Therefore I am consistent.” Again ignorance fallacy.
”We have far more than witnesses to slavery. We have children of slaves. We have public records of slaves and slave owners. Where are the children and public records of Jesus? ” you’re kidding I hope, right? This is not an argument it is an absurdity. So you believe there was no Jesus at all? My handicapped brother has no children are you claiming he doesn’t exist? There are over 56000 public records of his existence; your own birth date is based on his. It still does not negate his existence. Paul talks of a city called Corinth, did that once exist, or because it was in the bible it does not? BTW isn’t the Bible itself a public record? I can prove it is, can you prove it is not?
Now to Matt,
Thanks for sharing you career, so you were in First Division also. Wow
”What a remarkable similarity! After reading the Bible many times, I finally read it as a book - and my life was changed too. I recognized that it was full of contradictions, immoral commands, unjust actions, divisive dogma and tons of claims that simply weren't supported by reason or evidence.” This is funny and sad but acceptable
”What I find strange is that you seem to think that your atheism was remotely similar to my own. As far as I can tell, you were a 'default atheist'.” this is a good description and I agree our atheism were vastly different.
”You were a dick. I've never teased anyone for not going out to have a drink - regardless of their religious beliefs. You've made yet another strawman link; Christians are no fun and don't drink.” Yes I was a prick to be more accurate and I repented for that, but Christians don’t get drunk or drink hard liquor like we all did back then. I try now to do all things to glorify God and I can’t see myself drinking a beer to glorify God so I don’t. Wine is allowed though. I have a glass a few times a year.
"I lived the sinful life and didn’t want it anymore and I guess you just longed for it." I knew this would dig at you and I apologize. The absence of light is darkness though and that was my point. Running away from God was like running to the devil you must see that as an ex-Christian. Romans 7:12-14 was the point I wanted to make.
To your point about 1 Peter 3:15, I am trying my best to do that to everyone I can even to all of you. As you can see me here it is very difficult task sometimes and I try my best with meekness, my wife has it down no problem, I am a little rough around the edges, but God is working with me on that. That old me would have punched one of you by now but God has changed my heart immensely and I am amazed by it. It really is being born again into a new heart. I am changed this is for sure, you atheist call it maybe a placebo, but I can’t, the evidence is clear to me.
”The result of my studies was unexpected and exactly opposite of my goals…You found what you wanted to find...both times.” I understand and strangely I agree. What I can’t grasp is what did you find that turned you away, a complete 180 from your entire belief system. What could mankind possibly have said to you that made you then think that there was no God? I can’t fathom anything anyone can tell me to say to God nope you are not there. Why would you trust any man no matter what they said?
”As a former Christian, you were easy to peg from the start.” So why did you all invite me to discuss things in the first place? Are atheists who were former Christians, bullies? The fact that all of you can not prove anything that you claim to be true i.e. “No God” must be frustrating.
“It's a self-reinforcing delusion that supports your own desires - not your beliefs.” you mean like the desire to disprove there is a God. So you join an AE cult that reinforced that desire. The burden of proof is on you; prove that your desires were not to disprove the existence of God.
“your mind is closed and you're on auto-pilot, hoping that God doesn't see through your posturing.” Are you talking about me or you. He knows our thought life so that is something said out of ignorance of God or some other reason. One can say the same about you. God gave you many things that prove that he exists and you discount all of it to join a group that can’t disprove any of it. After all his name was to Moses, I AM who I AM. But that wasn’t good enough for you was it now.
“You're desperately trying to qualify for the reward you already think you're getting - and desperately waiting for God's wrath to lay waste to those understanding exceeds your own.” Not “to those understanding exceeds your own” but to the wicked and evil yes.
“Someday you'll realize that the true "sin" is in accepting a divisive, immoral belief system because it makes you feel special.” Yes like atheism and AE. Do you feel special that RD wrote about you?
“We all decided to actually care whether or not our beliefs were true.” so how did you go about doing that, by listening to a bunch of dudes? Someone you exalted above yourself (broke 2nd commandment) and listened to him instead of God. Hmm sounds just like what Adam did and Adam went and blamed it on God and Eve. “She did it, you created her” that didn’t work then and It will not work on judgment day, dude!
“ We all accepted that we should only believe things based on good evidence and sound reason.” Oh, like we came from a chimp and big explosions. Come on give me good reasons. “We realized that the justification for Christianity was, for all intents and purposes, identical to the justification for any religion or supernatural claim” right! God told us about them remember the paths parable in Matthew 7:13-14 So what is your point?
“You're the same person you were before” Prove it, puddin! Prove I am the same when you have never met or knew me in the past. Are these the same broad strokes you used to find that there is NO GOD? Give me a break, dude.
“you've just put on a new mask and have decided that you're willing to give credit for your achievements to a God, as long as it means you're not required to take responsibility for your previous actions.” If you mean the mask of Jesus then YES and Yes amen! I took responsibility for my sins I realized I deserve hell. Thanks Jesus for your blood! I have been washed clean as if I had never sinned. Nothing I can do will get me to heaven, it is a gift.
We can all just continue in our negative reciprocity if you would like, until judgment day and then one of us will tilt the scale. I am more then happy to do my part for 1 Peter 3:15’s sake. I do still love you all and want you to understand God and to get saved. To me this is proof again that he is here for all of us.
For Him,
Dan
>”I don’t give words power.” Are you sure about this? You place no value in language? Are you post modern? The Declaration of Independence is just a piece of paper, huh?
ReplyDeleteI believe you are confusing words with ideas. But even ideas don’t have power. The Constitution, for example, would be meaningless if it could not be enforced. The people have total power. The Declaration contains ideas—that happen to be expressed with words. I do not believe it has power. And I believe that any influence it has has to do with how people interpret it rather than the words and ideas it contains. No words or ideas have power. People have power. And they either lend it to ideas or they do not. But the ideas themselves contain no power. In fact, you express this above: “You place no value in language?” You admit that the “value” of language is limited to what value the person places on it. Therefore, language has no value—A person has value to lend to language. I see no reason to empower words to the point that I refrain from using them or try to use them—for personal feelings of restriction or compulsion. Now, respecting others’ views is another story. I do give away some personal power when I adapt my language to accommodate the feelings of others; however, I do not feel put out to do so, and am consciously willing to respect others in such a way when I can.
>“I do not believe in souls.” Again your ignorance is not an argument, it is a fallacy.
Have souls been isolated and independently verified? If not, then there is lack of sufficient reason to believe they exist at this time. Is a lack of belief in all other nonmanifesting claims--such as leprechauns, aliens, fairies, Zeus, unicorns--due to ignorance as well?
The argument from ignorance fallacy is actually the opposite of what you’re claiming. It indicates that if no verifiable information is available, that plugging in something for which there is no verification, and then claiming it’s the true cause, is the “argument from ignorance.” So, in fact, the person claiming there is a soul is the one presenting an idea due to lack of knowledge of an actual valid explanation. In the case of souls, it’s even funnier, because the word soul is used as a translation for a word that simply means “life” in the Bible. And in that Biblical sense, I do believe in souls—because it only means “life.”
>”I am not responsible for someone else’s decisions or beliefs. I certainly do not give myself that sort of credit for having power over anyone else’s thoughts, beliefs or actions.”Kind of reckless, to be in your position, to say this I think. Not claiming you would but to just prove a point, if you tell a blind man to follow you and you lead him to a cliff and he goes over would you be a murderer or wouldn’t you be responsible? What if you convince a kid to drink anti-freeze?
If you’re positing that Xians are impaired with regard to their ability to evaluate external information of the world around them (such as a blind person), then you have a point. I wasn’t thinking of it in those terms—that Xians should be considered unable to evaluate the reality around them or that they should be deemed simple-minded and easily led (like a child). I thought we were talking about the exchange of ideas among reasoning adults who are not impaired. I was giving the Xians the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
>What you say to someone has an effect on their outcome, do you agree.
Yes, I do agree that if an individual is impaired and reliant on me—as a child or a blind person example you provided; you have a point. Are you saying Xians or people seeking truth should be considered to be in this category?
> If you flip the bird to someone on the highway and cuss at him and get him furious
That is impossible. I do not have the ability to control another person’s emotions. Only the individual him/herself is capable of choosing their own emotional reaction. I cannot take credit or blame for someone else’s responses where I am not putting them under physical compulsion, and where they are adults without mental impairment (to give a hat tip to your earlier point). Since this person is driving, I’m assuming he’s not somehow mentally impaired.
>and he goes home and stabs his dog would you feel somewhat responsible.
Not at all. His choices are his own. If I flip him a bird, he doesn’t have to get “furious.” He can choose from a number of reactions, including finding it humorous. If he has anger management issues, that has nothing to do with me. Again, assuming he’s not somehow impaired mentally. If he is simply a codependent (the type of person who lets other people define his responses), he should seek counseling, as there is help available for such people. But their unwillingness to control themselves is not the result of the people around them. That’s like advising that a woman who is beaten by her husband shouldn’t do things to upset him—because his violent outbursts are her fault. I say that he needs to learn to control himself.
> What if you convince thousands that there is no God to find out there is, how about then?
Again, I do not have this ability. I put out information. I do not lie. People interpret it as they will. For example, you’re talking to me. And you believe in god still. You are a perfect example that I don’t have the magical ability to make anyone believe something, simply by explaining why I personally believe it. I’ve explained it to you, and you don’t agree with me; other people have that same capacity—they can think and choose for themselves.
>”I have not lied to anyone” Really ever? Never to your parents or yourself even? Never ever even once, you are saying?
Let me clarify that statement. I was talking in the context of our discussion—the context of what I’ve said to people regarding information I am aware of regarding why I am an atheist. I have not lied to anyone regarding that. In your post, you said you were talking about my testimony and information on the show. Just now, however, you opted to change the context. But I was responding in context.
>”I have no proof there is no god, you are right.” Hold on let me breath this one in. Ahhhh, thank you for admitting this and being honest. So you are not an Atheist then, right?
What did you think I meant when I said this in a prior post to you:
“To be clear, when you talk about things god does, and I say that it's not logical to say god did X until you prove there is a god. That doesn't mean there isn't a god. And it doesn't mean god didn't do X. It means only that _your arguments_ are illogical and, therefore, fail to support your claim that there is a god or that god did X. It leaves me without any support for your claims, and no reason to assume they're true (whether they are true or not cannot, therefore, be determined). My observation that your statements are illogical does not mean your conclusions are wrong. It means only that your statements do not add any support to your conclusions. And I still can't tell that what you're claiming is true in that case.”
Did you just miss that entirely? We’ve already been through this.
Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. In other words, if I do not actively adopt a belief in god, I am an atheist. This means that people who, for example, say “I’m not sure if I believe there is a god or not,” are atheists—because they do not have belief in god. They lack belief in god, and are by definition atheists. Many people confuse this with agnosticism, but an agnostic is a statement of knowledge, and not comparable to an atheist, because they deal with different realms (belief versus knowledge)—they’re apples and oranges. Most agnostics would also be atheists, because they feel there is insufficient evidence to support a determination of god’s existence. An agnostic could still believe in god, but it is odd to say any valid/pertinent information on the subject is totally lacking (agnostic)—so I’ll believe it anyway (deist/theist).
Meanwhile, I believe in god as much as I believe in leprechauns—which I also cannot disprove—if that helps.
>a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
>n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God
Correct. I do not believe in god. I am one who disbelieves. I cannot disprove god. I do not believe in leprechauns. I am one who disbelieves. I cannot disprove them. I honestly am not sure what you don’t understand?
>”So, you think slaves and employees are the same thing?” After reflecting on this later on, No I don’t. I was trying to relate a situation to today’s time and standards. What flashed in my head is our own slaves here in the US and I would hate to think that people would believe that I thought that they were just employees of the time but they weren’t, they were beaten downtrodden slaves. The bible did say masters be kind to your slaves so the US failed immensely at that.
Still—the idea that it asks slaves to obey masters is a condoning of the institution of slavery. The Bible could have said, “Slavery is contrary to god’s will—people deserve to be free.” But it did not. The comment on the show, specifically, was regarding a pamphlet that claimed the Bible was the only ancient book “for today”—or that had relevance today. The author of that pamphlet was ignoring passages such as this one—that very much relate to the past and should not be used today. That was my only point.
>I think I posed this to Stephen earlier but lets say you did find proof but at a price. Lets say the government bans Christianity and whoever is caught preaching would be tortured and limbs would be removed and such, real painful things. But God manifests himself to you and you have no doubt( you define what would it take, independently verifiable by the hundreds) and he tells you to preach to the world that he does exist. He appoints you because of all of the past damage that you have done with your AE show and all. Would you follow God or the Government, would you endure persecution in the name of God then? (BTW this is what really did happen to Saul/Paul and he was tortured the most I think.)
I have to agree with most other atheists on this, that I would have to have a lot of questions answered first. Let me explain: We talked earlier about morality and what constitutes morality. Is god moral because anything he does is defined as moral (bar none)? Or is god moral because he is subject to a higher moral law? I have ideas about what is moral. And I have many problems with the god described in the Bible. If I saw there was a god, and he was the god in the Bible, and he made no explanation or apology regarding the descriptions of what he did and how he behaved, I would have reservations about doing the will of an existent god that I considered to be the author of some/any immorality. So, I really couldn’t say that just because I found out there really was a god, that I would automatically feel compelled to do that god’s bidding. If that god was, in my opinion, evil, I would probably do what I could to thwart him in any way possible—even if it was futile (especially if I thought he unjustly planned to kill some more children or something along those lines).
Meanwhile, I quite feel like Paul describes himself sometimes. I feel like I spent years of my life preaching falsehoods to people, only to wake up after years of searching to realize what I’d done. Now, I feel I am doing what I can to help people who might have been like myself—looking for information upon which to make decisions for myself. I honestly don’t wish to convince others to agree with me. I only want them to think for themselves in order to determine what they believe. Now, in your case, you’re presenting me with arguments for what you believe, and I’m responding to say why I don’t find them convincing myself. This is not the same as trying to convince you to adopt my ideology. I am not going to Xian forums to deconvert people. I could try to do that, but I have no desire to. If someone wants to know what I know, I’m happy to share it. But I don’t actively try to deconvert people.
>”Please explain how I was rude…” is cutting someone off in mid thought or mid sentence and placing her on hold while you get to say all that you wanted, rude to you?
Please explain how [I] was rude. I have no control over the phones on the show. Matt cut the person off. But I do not disagree with his decision. She asked questions and did not stop to hear answers. In order to have a conversation, Matt had to halt her at some point to respond. If she asks questions, I assume she wants replies. Otherwise, why ask?
>It is to me. Ohhhh wait you said its Matt’s fault, ok then you were not rude to her.
The host controls the phones, 100 percent. I have often said to Matt: “Let him/her talk.” But if we’re going to dialogue, we need to be able to answer questions that are put to us. Again, he didn’t tell her to “shut up a minute.” He usually even will say (although I can’t say if he did this time or not) “Sorry, but we’re going to have to put you on hold for a minute, I’m not hanging up on you…” When callers dialogue, we don’t usually need to put anyone on hold. This lady wasn’t pausing, but was asking for information. We couldn’t provide it while she continued to talk. Is it polite to ask someone a question and then talk over them while they attempt to provide you with the answer you requested? Matt was just making an effort to respond—which neither of us could have otherwise done.
But I’m glad to hear that Matt putting someone on hold so we could answer her questions was as “rude” as I got. I’m OK with that. And I appreciate you clarifying.
>”fairies, big foot,..None of these things has ever been conclusively disproved, either.” from your stand point of prove a God otherwise he doesn’t exist I agree. But using the AE rules of engagement, ignorance fallacy in not an argument. Are your points moot then?
Again, the argument from ignorance is about _plugging something in_ just because you don’t have a proven explanation yet. My Gravity Fairies were a prime example of the argument from ignorance:
If we can’t prove what causes gravity—we can say it must be gravity fairies.
THAT is the argument from ignorance fallacy.
You telling me that my gravity fairies don’t exist because I have no valid support to prove they exist—and am only using them because I’m IGNORANT of the REAL cause—is NOT the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. You are misunderstanding (and misusing) that fallacy.
While I’m glad you finally took a look at some fallacies, I’m not sure you’re understanding them correctly yet. You’re misusing the term. It’s about putting in made up information to replace an unknown cause. I’m saying that when it comes to god “I don’t know—and therefore have insufficient reason to believe” is the truth. Saying god made the universe, because you feel a better explanation is lacking IS the argument from ignorance. You can’t just plug in X-unfounded-answer simply because you don’t have any proven answer yet.
>”That you say is created by god, because men told you it was created by god, and wrote and revised the books and stories to make “prophecies”—and this convinces you.” Again burden of proof is on your part you must prove to me that man wrote and revised (instead of translated) stories to make prophecies, show me evidence of this did you read a “story” on this or were you there? “The burden of proof for a claim always rests upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question” In this case the existence of things is the proof of men making things up to write the bible. These broad sweeping unsubstantiated claims are reckless.
I gave you two passages where people added information already. Bible translators indicated that when they examine the “earliest and most reliable” copies of the manuscripts these verses are not in them. What do you call that if not a forger adding material at a later date? These books have been altered—and afterward were used to produce your Bible. I sent you to Bible gateway where you could see the marginal notes from the Bible scholars/translators yourself.
These men and women make a living working with documents that are used to produce the Bibles that support Xianity. And even they have to admit that they know there is added material that does not represent the content of the best and earliest copies of the manuscripts. This isn’t some atheist propaganda web site spewing this info to take down Xianity—it’s the top selected Bible scholars whose job it is to work with these documents day in and day out to support the Xian religion.
>”You see the universe manifesting, you know it’s there. You say you know god is there—where is god’s manifestation?” I know for a fact you will hate this answer but it is truth as I see it. Proof of God: If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator.
I never hate an answer. From my perspective, things I know are built, I know have builders. But universes aren’t things I know are built. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand how you’re looking at it. I just don’t agree that your assumption is supported. In fact, creation ex nihilo was not always accepted by all Xians everywhere. The Genesis story reflects older regional stories that indicate the gods came along and fashioned existing materials into all creation. There are still hints of this early polytheism in the Bible Genesis story, where the Bible refers to the elohim—literally “the gods.” You see it in passages like, “let us make man in our image.” The early god was El, adopted from the Canaanites (pulled from Ugaritic stories). Later, El changes his name to Yaweh in the stories. Bible scholars separate the writers in the OT using J and E—the writers that reference god as “El” and the ones who use Yaweh or Jehovah.
>Our ignorance of the how and why does not excuse us from believing in a creator. Again you are claiming an ignorance fallacy.
I’ve said it before, and so I’ll not be too long-winded here. But I really think you need to go back and reread the “argument from ignorance” fallacy. It is about making positive statements or claims to use in place of areas where knowledge is lacking. So, claiming a god made the universe because we otherwise don’t know how it was done, is actually the fallacy.
The Gravity Fairies was the best example of the argument from ignorance really. The person who posits the fairies is guilty of the fallacy in the same way the person who posits god would be. The person denying the gravity fairies, is quite obviously NOT the one exhibiting a logical fallacy, and it works the same when you plug in god again.
>”I don’t believe in them due to lack of evidence. Therefore I am consistent.” Again ignorance fallacy.
Definitely, go back and re-read. You’re not understanding that fallacy accurately. According to the way you’re using it, it would be the same as saying that belief in fairies is logical. That’s not how the fallacy is meant to be taken. You’ve misinterpreted it.
>”We have far more than witnesses to slavery. We have children of slaves. We have public records of slaves and slave owners. Where are the children and public records of Jesus? ” you’re kidding I hope, right? This is not an argument it is an absurdity. So you believe there was no Jesus at all?
First of all, I never said there was no Jesus. You assumed it, I’m guessing? I was pointing out that there is far more in the way of evidence to support the existence of slavery than that Jesus lived. I don’t know if Jesus lived or not.
>My handicapped brother has no children are you claiming he doesn’t exist?
Not at all, but I would bet that you could provide more evidence of your brother’s existence than of Jesus’ existence, though.
>There are over 56000 public records of his existence;
Can you provide a public record of Jesus existence? The Romans kept excellent records. So, maybe I’m ignorant here. A birth certificate or record? Tax record? Census record? Arrest record? Execution record? Any public record would be a good start.
>your own birth date is based on his.
Let’s say there was a historic figure of Jesus, like the ones that inspired the Robin Hood or King Arthur legends. We believe they existed—but not quite like the tall tales that surround them today. Are you saying we know what year he was born? Can you point me to how we “know” that one? If you mean anno domino, that wasn’t adopted until several centuries after the event supposedly took place. It wasn’t as though they started this at the real time Jesus was supposedly born. Again, it’s just something the church made up later—not unlike the Bible canon.
> It still does not negate his existence. Paul talks of a city called Corinth, did that once exist, or because it was in the bible it does not?
Homer wrote the Illiad and the Odessy. It contains real places and people. Were there Greeks? Certainly. In fact, there are still Greeks today. Do we know then that there were Cyclops and Krakens and a pantheon of gods and goddesses that drove their destinies? I don’t. But there are definitely real battles and places and people in there. Does that support even his claims of the supernatural? According to your argument above, yes, it does. I don’t agree.
>BTW isn’t the Bible itself a public record?
How are privately addressed letters public records? Certainly some of the things it discusses are actual places—but the truth is that sorting the fact from fiction is no longer possible. You keep talking about all the mentions of Jesus in literature (your 56,000 books). But you claim a lot of that literature is tall tales—like the apocrypha. I don’t see the difference between the books you claim are “true” and the ones you claim are “false” about Jesus. It’s 2,000 years ago, we don’t know the authors—some books are written absolutely anonymously—with no claims whatsoever of authorship or inspiration. Some knowingly contain material that has been added at later dates to the earliest known copies. I cannot take these writings as trustworthy. I realize you do—but I can’t, in good conscience, claim they’re reliable.
>I can prove it is, can you prove it is not?
Please feel free. Again—how are you defining “public record”? Paul wrote private letters that were not written for public consumption. By what authority do you claim letters he addressed privately to individuals and particular, specific groups are intended for public use? How do you claim Luke, who addressed his book to one person only, is intended as public record? Yes, I’m interested in hearing why you agree with the church in disagreeing with the authors of these works with regard to how their writing was intended to be used.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteSo, let me get this straight...
You think that the default position is to believe in the God of the Bible until someone can prove that he doesn't exist?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteAh--maybe I see what you're doing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, _or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true_." [Emphasis mine]
The problem is that I'm not saying that because you haven't proven there is a god, there is no god. I'm saying that because there is no evidence of manifestation, there is insufficient cause to believe in god's existence. As I said in my quote from the prior post. I do not say I have disproven god. I say that you have shown insufficient evidence to merit belief that god exists. That's not the same as claiming "that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true." I'm not claiming there is no god. I'm claiming there is insufficient evidence available to validate belief in god.
And just to be clear, this is the quote I mean:
ReplyDelete“To be clear, when you talk about things god does, and I say that it's not logical to say god did X until you prove there is a god. That doesn't mean there isn't a god. And it doesn't mean god didn't do X. It means only that _your arguments_ are illogical and, therefore, fail to support your claim that there is a god or that god did X. It leaves me without any support for your claims, and no reason to assume they're true (whether they are true or not cannot, therefore, be determined). My observation that your statements are illogical does not mean your conclusions are wrong. It means only that your statements do not add any support to your conclusions. And I still can't tell that what you're claiming is true in that case.”
I'm clearly stating here that I understand it would be a fallacy to say that because you can't prove your claim, you claim is false. If you can't prove your claim, it only means I have no reason to believe your claim--since I can't determine if your claim is true or not.
Does that help?
Same here:
ReplyDelete"I have no proof there is no god, you are right. And I have no proof there are no leprechauns, as well. I do not see that as a reason to believe in leprechauns. What I need to believe in leprechauns would be manifestation of leprechauns. And I need no more or less from “god” or from a germ. Again, if a thing exists, it manifests. If a thing does not exist, it does not manifest. _Your god does not appear to manifest. So, he does not appear to exist at this time._" [Emphasis mine, again]
Do you see? I'm not saying "there is no god,since god does not manifest." I'm saying that until god manifests, there is no reason to believe in god. There may be a god--but if he doesn't manifest, I don't know what I'm supposed to be believing in. There's literally nothing I can point to, examine, and say, "Ah, god! That's god (in the manifesting realm of existence)." There appears to be nothing there when people describe their god. Maybe we can't detect the manifestation yet--but a year from now, we will. At that time, we'll have something to talk about; there will be something to examine; a reason for belief in the existence of god--but until that time...? And, as far as I know, there currently is no manifestation to base god's existence upon.
Big difference between saying there is no god and saying there's currently nothing upon which to base belief in god's existence. Those are two very different statements.
I just thought of something, again: If I understand your latest argument clearly, then your premise: god exists, is actually more accurately stated as, "god has neither been proved nor disproved conclusively based on evidence of existence/manifestation."
ReplyDeleteThis means that your premise (god exists), by your admission, has not been proved. This further continues to mean that you have not verified your idea that god exists is true--which is basically what I've been saying. In this case, you cannot logically move forward with any arguments regarding god, because you have still failed to provide any manifestation for examination to verify your premise (god exists) as being true. Unless you can show that god conclusively _does_ exist, you cannot "know" that your claims that god did or said or is responsible for _anything_ are true. You are working on pure supposition for a premise, not a proven premise of existence. And this is the closest you've come to acknowledging that.
The problem remains however, that we're back to square one. Can you verify your premise as true? Or is the best you can offer that nobody has the actual knowledge required to prove whether a god exists or not? If this is the case, then you are, by definition, an agnostic. In fact, if you truly believe faith is required, then you're arguing for agnosticism--claiming, in fact, that nobody can know there is a god--they simply have to believe without the knowledge to support the belief. You would be an agnostic theist if this is your stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
"Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable."
"Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion."
Further, can you explain, if claims of existence should be accepted until disproven, why you hold other disproven claims to a different standard?
In other words, your failure to prove the existence of god does not mean there is no god; but it means your have not verified god exists. Therefore your further claims about god, regarding the Bible and the universe are unsubstantiated and nothing more than personal supposition (until you support your claim god exists). They cannot count as evidence for god, because they are not supported by a verfied premise. They are dependent upon a claim that is still unverfied:
If there is no god, then your claims regarding the universe and the Bible are mistaken.
Proving god exists is key to supporting all of your other arguments. I have repeatedly stated this. And even with your latest "you can't disprove god"--you're still skirting the issue. You are the one claiming god did/does all sorts of things. If we are to know this is true, god's existence _must_ be verified. Saying "god isn't disproved" does not go far enough to build your required premise. God _must_ exist in order to make claims that god does anything supportable.
If you merely want to say "there may be a god, but there is no way to verify that claim," you have a stronger case, for sure. But when you begin to make attributions to god, you're way off into utterly unsupported assumptions and suppositions until you show there actually _is_ a god.
In fact, you claim you think it makes sense a god created the universe. But you have not shown there is a god. So, your extrapolation there is assumption only, and is utterly without the support of any valid premise. You claim god had a hand in producing the Bible--again, your premise is unsupported, and therefore, your extrapolation is now twice removed from any valid, supported premise. You can't move on with arguments that require a god exists (what god does and says), if your argument for god is only as strong as "nobody has conclusive evidence for god's existence either way." Without a god to examine, your claims are baseless. God must exist and be manifest if we are to examine god in order to determine whether or not any of your further claims regarding god are not completely baseless.
Sorry to dominate the forum like this overnight—but your post was interesting.
ReplyDeleteI thought more and more about about anology of telling the blind man to walk off the cliff. Here’s what I wondered:
I said I gave totally honest information to people--and I don't hold any info I'm aware of back. I am not lying to them regarding what I see or do not see with regard to belief in god. So, in your analogy, you had me lying to the man—purposefully. That is not, however, an accurate reflection of what I described that I am doing. I am not responsible for how people interpret data--offered as fully disclosed information.
So, the anology would go something like this—if it was to reflect our actual situation:
A blind man comes up to me, headed West. He says, “Is the road continuing on Westward for awhile?” I take a good, hard look West, and see nothing but miles of road, and say, “Yes, as far as I can see, it goes on for Miles in the direction you are heading.”
The man walks off with his cane.
You come along freaked out that he’s about to walk over a cliff—telling me I’ve sent him to his death. I look again, but don’t see anything but road. I say to you, “Where do you see a cliff?”
You say, “I read that there is a cliff over there.” I reply, “But look, there’s no cliff.” And the blind man continues walking off.
I ask you, “Are you sure you and I are defining “cliff” the same way? I don’t see any cliff. What are you calling a cliff?” You say, “Cliffs are the supernatural result of rejection by light and love I read about.” I say, “Oh OK—I thought you meant a big crevice that people fall into. We’re good then. At least the ‘cliff’ presents no real danger to the blind man.”
Now, if there is some awful result of the blind man heading West that a supernatural entity shrouded in a veil of seeming nonexistence of a cliff, simply because this being prefers guessing games rather than verifiable truth--I can honestly say I don't feel responsible for that.
1. Person A(Dan) makes claim X.
ReplyDelete2. Person B(Martin) makes an attack on person A(Dan).
3. Therefore A’s(Dan's) claim is false.
Wrong again, chump! Try this one.
1. Person A (Dan) makes claim X.
2. Person B (Martin)--in addition to persons C, D, E, etc--points out errors and fallacies in person A's claim.
3. Therefore A's (Dan's) claim is false.
4. Person A (Dan) repeats refuted claims.
5. Person B (Martin)--as well as persons C, D, E, etc--points out stupidity of person A.
There, I think that's a bit more accurate an account of what's been going on here.
An ad hominem fallacy is made when a person brings up an irrelevant factor about someone in an attempt to discredit their views. This is what Dan did when he brought up Dr. Laboissiere's gaming hobby, which had nothing to do with his expertise on logic.
This is not the same thing as pointing out when someone is, in fact, being plain stupid. Make a false claim or a lousy argument, and it's hardly irrelevant to say that it reflects stupidity on the arguer's part. I fully fess up to pointing out Dan's stupidity in multiple posts. If Dan doesn't wish to be attacked, he should consider refraining from stupid behavior.
I have, of course, been careful to point out where Dan has been in error factually each time I've replied to his claims. Stephen, Tracie, and others have even been more detailed than I have in this. Dan's replies have been growing less and less coherent and more desperate sounding each time. His most recent post seems to be an extended exercise in "Same to you and more of it!" which argues for a growing frustration.
There is no frustration on my part, I am concerned for the people that follow your AE program but I understand more now in that these are people that do not wish to find truth but to eat dinner with and fellowship with common like minded people. I am still saddened by your denial of what you are doing here. You are all denying that your arguments are based on no evidence so therefore God does not exist.
ReplyDeleteLet’s get to the root of the matter, no pun intended. The root word of “A” means no or without as in abyss - without bottom; achromatic - without color; anhydrous - without water. Other examples asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism
This can not be denied even by your pragmatism.
Theist or Greek word theos means God we can all agree. You are all claiming by calling yourselves atheists that there is “NO GOD” the burden of proof is on you and your name. In Greek you would be called atheos Defend your label or call yourselves something else. Atheist means NO GOD no matter what you may think it means, that is what it means. You can not rewrite something to fit your viewpoint, your entire premises is a fallacy and you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that your claim is to be true or you are unable to clarify your claim. You are all lost in a delusion that the word means something else. If I called myself asexual and I have a penis, I would be deceiving myself. The burden of proof isn’t on Christians (followers of Jesus) there is no question that we follow Jesus, it is obvious. The burden of proof is on the atheist (NO GOD) the claim in question. You can spin it all you want, I understand your positions, but you owe your fans an explanation of this, after all your show is called AE correct?
I am a follower of Christ or I am a Christian. I don’t think there is anyone on this earth that doesn’t believe this man existed besides you Tracie. He did exist provable through either public or private records. He is not a figment, he is real and we are followers of him. My label is a true statement. Yours is a fallacy.
God will be my judge to see if I stepped out of line I am OK with that. Your name calling has never had an effect on me Martin or anyone else, be sure of that. Because my love for you, as well as for all of you, still exists. I still am concerned for you all. All I ask is are you sure what you are claiming isn’t false and when it is proven to be false will you get on your knees and repent for the deceit you have portrayed here all this time, or will you be too proud to bow to God after he reviles himself to you again?
For Him,
Dan
When God "reviles" himself to us? Is that a Freudian slip?
ReplyDeleteIf God ever did reveal (I assume that's the word you meant) himself to us, rather than bow to him I suspect I'd demand an apology not only for all of the innocent victims of evil in the world whom he's allowed to suffer, but also for relying on uneducated, dishonest, and incoherent pinheads who don't even understand the things they claim to believe in to act as his spokesmen.
Dan, we have explained the nature of burden of proof to you repeatedly. If you are too stupid to get it after all this time, then please do us all a favor and go away. We are not spinning the subject, you are. Our definition of burden of proof is accurate, yours is distorted. One more time, for the retarded children in the class:
Believers claim a god exists.
We ask for evidence.
We either get none, or "evidence" so poor it doesn't merit the name.
We declare ourselves atheists.
That's how it works. The existence of your God is no more a given than the existence of Zeus. We are under no obligation to believe as you do unless you make your case. It's not our job to prove to you your invisible friend doesn't exist, it's your job to prove to us he does. Just like a person who claimed invisible gnomes live in his backyard; it's up to him to prove his claim, not up to those who disbelieve him to prove he's wrong.
If you're TOO STUPID TO GET THAT, then GET LOST.
And please stop saying you love me. Of all the lies you tell, that's the most egregiously self-serving.
Dear Dan,
ReplyDeleteOh, boy, where do I start? I could go on and on, but I will stick to the most blatant.
Your misuse of my native tongue is disgusting. When someone shows you something, he REVEALS it, not REVILES it! Can you once, just once, understand how pathetically IGNORANT you sound when you make a mistake like that? I know who you are, Dan, I know what you look like. So do MILLIONS of other people ALL OVER THIS PLANET. And EVERYONE of us is laughing at you! Reread the last statement of your 4:50 PM 23 March post.
Because you used the wrong word you made a statement that is at once hilarious and terribly sad. If you don't understand, get a sixth grader to show you what I'm talking about. But that is what I have come to expect from you, so I'll just laugh with everyone else.
More to the point, it's do or die time, Danny Boy. YOU came to this site, UNINVITED, spouting the usual claptrap of Christianity. Well, Dan, I don't give a rat's ass what branch you served in, I'm a vet and I'm calling your bluff. Man to Man, Dan. A man, Dan, backs his words or he doesn't speak. I am a man, Dan, are you?
As you so weirdly pointed out to Tracie, we know you have a penis, but that doesn't make you a man, Dan. I know you're a southerner, Dan, so you live by the code that when a man is challenged, he doesn't back down. So here it is, Dan:
I hereby proclaim to THE WORLD, not just you, Dan, old sod, but TO THE WORLD that if you can give me one (1) (That's just one, Dan) piece of verifiable evidence that Jesus existed, I will personally drive my motorcycle right down there to Austin and kiss your ass on live TV. I vow, I swear, I affirm, I stake my life on this statement, Dan.
I am a man of my word, Dan. I challenge you to take me up on it. I mean it, Dan. Take me up on it or be forever branded a chickens**t bulls**ter who, when given the chance to do the ONE THING NO ONE ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY COULD DO, WUSSED OUT. Why can I make such a challenge, Dan? Figure it out.
If you do not take me up on this challenge, if you use the chickens**t bulls**t excuse 'I don't have to prove anything,' you know as a southerner I will forever be entitled to no longer address you as Dan, but as Chickens**t Bulls**ter Dan.
You have ceased to be amusing, Dan, it is time to put up or shut up. So, Dan, either do this, or shut the hell up, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Your entire premise (look the word up, Dan) rests on Jesus' existence. You have said it's all about faith, and then you make the statement that YOU CAN PROVE JESUS EXISTED. ("He did exist provable through either public or private records.") YOU made that statement, Dan, and every person reading this post knows that. So, I'm challenging you to do it, Dan. Formally, as one man challenges another man.
Once more, Dan, and I'll make it as simple as possible: Dan said on 23 March, 2007 that he can prove Jesus existed. I, Otto, have challenged him in front of THE WORLD to do so. Got it? I sure hope so because, Dan, 'CB Dan' is one stupid moniker to be saddled with.
I, Otto, (Ottovstar net name) have made my statement this day, 23 March, 2007. Do I drive to Austin to buss your butt, or do I hereafter call you CB Dan?
For the record, Dan, you're once again misusing words.
ReplyDeleteTheist does not mean "God". Theist means "God belief", a belief in a god. There's a difference there, Dan. You claim it means the actual entity (which you also cannot properly define), the actual definition says it's believe in said entity.
From Webster:
Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
Therefore, atheist does not mean "No god", it means "No god belief". A big difference, one that nulls your whole "prove it or shutup" stance...or would, if you weren't so incredibly wrong on where the burden of proof actually lies.
Also, you're misusing the term asexual. Not completely, but the way you used it in your example was wrong. Asexual does not just mean lacking in sexual organs, it also means somebody lacking in a sex drive, ie, somebody with absolutly no interest in sex. I personally know one, and there's support communities for them, so they do exist. Yes, he does have a fully functional penis (and the asexual girls aren't lacking in their particular organs, either)
I would recommend you start making sure your basic facts are correct before you start using them to construct arguments. Your word definitions are incorrect, your word usage is incorrect, your idea's on the basics behind logic and fallacies are incorrect, etc.
Also, your claim that Tracie is the only one in the entire world who doesn't believe Jesus Christ actually existed, as represented in the bible, is nothing but hyperbole. You've just been given a challenge to prove his existence, so evidently there's somebody else who doesn't believe. I am the third. I'm sure there's at least a fourth somewhere in this forum.
I've seen the claims that there are 56,000 documents that mention Jesus before, but I've also seen it shot down before, when it was pointed out that that number is a) highly exaggerated and b) includes many, many documents through the ages that reference other documents as proof of Jesus. For example, if there was a document (hypothetically, lets say a town census of some kind) and it had the name Jesus on it, and 4 people throughout the ages reference this document when they talk of Jesus to prove the Jesus they are talking about existed, then there's still only one document that can be used to show Jesus existed. However, whoever it was that came up with the number 56,000 would have counted five documents. See the problem? Four of those aren't original, and if the hypothetical census ended up being a forgery or was talking about some other Jesus, then all of them need to be discarded, or at least not counted as evidence of Jesus.
Think of it another way. Imagine if a scientist publishes a paper called "Gravity Fairies and You: How those cute little critters keep you and I planted on the Earth" (pardon the borrow, Tracie). Imagine if this paper talks about how he somehow found evidence that gravity fairies cause gravity. Now imagine if 10 people read this paper and then, when writing something of their own, they mention this paper and the gravity fairies. Now imagine Newton comes along and disproves the fairies, proving the original paper wrong. There are 11 documents out there that mention the gravity fairies, but now all 11 of them are wrong, because the original was wrong. So it would be wrong to say that there are 11 documents showing gravity fairies existed, when there's only one original, and the other 10 rely on the validity of the original to stay accurate. There's no need to limit it to 10, either, it could have been any number of people who included mention of the fairies and who ended up being wrong. 55,999, for instance. 56,000 documents mentioning gravity fairies is a lot, but when the validity of the original paper (or the original couple papers) are called into question, or cannot be shown to be accurate at all, then there are 56,000 documents who's accuracy is either wrong or still not proven to be true. Just because there are a lot of documents that mention the fairies does not make them really exist. ...This example is a bit childish, but given Dan's ability to easily read over something that shows an argument of his to be wrong or lacking in substance, I think speaking in childish language and using simple to understand examples may help Dan to understand a little more.
Anyway, I have not done as much biblical research as some of the others in this forum, so I'll leave it to others to tell me if I'm on the right track with that.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to raise the bar, tell Dan that you'll not only kiss his ass but you'll do it on an episode of The Atheist Experience. Now how's that for an irresistable offer.
What do you say, Mr Dillahunty? Of course it would probably loose something in the podcast.
JPonion,
I'll add myself in as the fourth person who doubts the historical existance of Jesus. Even if a Jesus did exist the the bible was based on I think the story has been so exagerated and added to that describe a character that is mostly fictional.
What do you say, Mr Dillahunty? Of course it would probably loose something in the podcast.
ReplyDeleteMr. Dillahunty is still my dad...Matt is fine. :)
There's no way I'm allowing public ass-kissing on the show, even if it's my ass that is being kissed.
I'm wondering if Dan is ever going to answer my very simple, yes-no question...
Matt,
ReplyDeleteMr. Dillahunty is still my dad...Matt is fine. :)
Sorry. Matt it is then.
There's no way I'm allowing public ass-kissing on the show, even if it's my ass that is being kissed.
And that's why you're still on public access.
I'm joking. I'm joking. Still sex sells. I'm just saying that if it was The Atheist Orgasm...
Maybe not.
I'm wondering if Dan is ever going to answer my very simple, yes-no question...
I wouldn't get my hopes up. The human lifespan is only so long.
Stephen, my confused friend, was there ever a time I said that Christians do not sin?
ReplyDeleteTo answer this, let's look a few lines lower in the very same reply...
a Christian would not fornicate because it is against God’s will although the urges are there God gives us the strength to overcome the sinning. ... a Christian that sees filth on TV would close his eyes and change the channel. ... If we continue to sin or willing to sin and have no remorse or repentance then you are called a false convert.
Here, you made a few very specific claims about "sins" a Christian would not commit, and that if such sins were still committed, the alleged Christian is a false convert. That's a pretty clear statement that you believe true Christians do not sin, but false converts may continue to sin.
Given your lack of remorse or repentance for the lies, hatred and self-conceit you have persistently displayed so far, it is clear to all who have been following this conversation, atheists and Christians alike, that you are a "false convert" according to your own accounting.
I'm not confused at all. I know exactly what you're doing: directly contradicting yourself. In other words, you're telling lies, habitually, and without regret.
An atheist would say lies are ok a Christian wouldn’t want to lie.
That very sentence of yours was an unfounded and highly prejudiced lie. You have born false witness against all of us.
None of the atheists I know--not one--has said, or would say, that "lies are ok". Rather, we have consistently explained that we hold truth in very high esteem--higher, even, than personal convenience or comfort. You, however, have demonstrated your capacity for telling and perpetuating known lies, have explicitly endorsed lying, and have even gone so far as to insist that merely seeking truth is a bad idea that scripture does not support. If Christians don't lie or don't want to lie, then you're obviously not a Christian, by your own reasoning.
”Moreover, we do have at least three conclusive logical proofs that there is "no God" with the properties you wish to apply to your God. Let's review:”
I understand your points, but to repeat myself to refute all of what you just said I submit from my last post:
What you said wasn't a logical refutation of any of those arguments the first time you said it, and merely repeating it doesn't render it a refutation.
At best, what you wrote appears to support the logical arguments I made, but only seeks to excuse your God's inability or unwillingness to prevent tragedy, or even to deliberately force tragedy in order to make a point or inflate his own ego.
The logical arguments refuting the existence or relevance of a supernatural, holy, or trustworthy deity within our universe remain unrefuted. Feel free to try again.
You should be aware, however, that the Problem of Evil (essentially, the refutation of the existence of a trustworthy deity in a universe where "evil" occurs), appears to be irrefutable. It was introduced to Western civilization by the Greek philosopher Epicurus in approximately 300 BCE. An entire branch of theology known as "theodicy" has tried in vain to refute the PoE for at least 2,300 years. The best responses that millions of well-motivated theologians have been able to produce in all that time are not refutations, but lame excuses for why it might be reasonable to believe in, trust and worship a deity who is necessarily irrelevant or evil, and by all accounts untrustworthy. Even in that scaled-back effort, they have utterly failed.
So have you.
So stop lying about us failing to prove there is "no God". We have done that, at least three times over.
That is, unless you are using a definition of "God" that does not involve him being supernatural, holy, or trustworthy. As a reminder, you still haven't clearly defined or described the God in which you claim to believe.
”The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, for example, has considerably better character development, and a far more cohesive plot.”
But it will never save you from the eternal lake of fire. Just a moot point.
That is a very moot point indeed, as the Bible also will never save anyone from "the eternal lake of fire." Fortunately, there is something that probably will: it does not appear to exist!
”Of course I can scripturally back my claim that truth is preferable to lies, but there is no need to go so far.”
Prove it, puddin! Prove that science, or the pursuit there of, is desired by God for us to seek then the Truth of the Lord. I will admit I am wrong if you do. If I am confused about God’s message then please be a friend and point me in the right direction.
No, "puddin", I cannot point you in "the right direction" by calling your attention to scripture, because scripture is no more reliable than the weakest link in the long chain of unknowledgeable people who wrote, edited, canonized, translated and interpreted it. You are massively confused about "God's message", in no small part because you are confused about the existence, relevance or nature of the God it describes--as we have explained to you in excruciatingly meticulous detail, over and over and over again.
At this point, I almost prefer that you remain an ignoramous who believes, and loudly proclaims, that truth is not preferable to lies. Your unabashed advocacy of willful ignorance and deliberate falsehood--of being stupid on purpose--makes Christianity look very, very bad. (Just ask your Christian friends and family members what they think of your representation here, of their God and their beliefs.) That outcome is just fine with me. Until you are able to recognize and acknowledge that seeking truth is even a good idea, I don't want you on my side. By all means, remain a proudly ignorant "false convert" "Christian" LIAR as long as you like. That's your choice, and the consequences are yours to bear.
That said, if you still insist upon having scriptural support for the basic, self-evident concept that truth is good, I recommend asking your pastor, your wife, or even your kids. I'm pretty confident that all of them think truth is good and lies are bad, and will be more than able to point you to numerous scriptural passages which say so.
I must point out that you stopped being "a friend" the moment you welcomed yourself into our virtual living room, pulled down your pants to moon us, and then proceeded to systematically defecate your lies and insults upon our virtual carpet, for weeks. You overstayed your welcome long ago.
If you insist upon sticking around, please ask your wife or your pastor to review your comments before you post them. You could almost certainly benefit from a little "Christian" accountability.
>You are all denying that your arguments are based on no evidence so therefore God does not exist.
ReplyDeleteAnd your arguments are based on an assumption that god exists, which you have not yet been able to verify. A huge difference is that you then go on to extrapolate supernatural realms, people defying physics, inspired books, universe creation ideas and on and on—without ever bothering to first verify your premise that there is even a god.
My argument so far has only been that your argument is baseless. And until you provide manifestation of a god, it is baseless. I don’t know whether there is a good or not. But I know you haven’t validated your premise—so my argument that your argument is baseless requires no more evidence than to point out that you’ve failed to identify a god. And you have failed to ID a god—unless I’ve missed something so far.
Your argument that nobody can prove a god does not exist in no way validates your claim that god does exist. You still have to prove your claim. The fallacy you lately appealed to: the argument from ignorance does give you the benefit that baseless speculation (guessing something is true without any verification) may still turn out to be true. It’s commonly known as a “lucky guess”. That doesn’t mean that just because a lucky guess may turn out to be accurate on occasion, that we should all accept baseless speculation (unverified assumptions) as true until prove false. You’re not understanding the implications of this fallacy. It is stating that you may not be wrong. It is NOT stating that you are right. You still have to prove your claim that there is a god for anything else you offer to be based in a verified reality.
>You are all claiming by calling yourselves atheists that there is “NO GOD”
Incorrect. You proved the definition yourself—one who disbelieves in god is also an atheist. By the accepted standard definition (you provided—and that is found in most established dictionaries—the standard of English language meaning), anyone who cannot say “I believe in god,” is an atheist. Now that the correct definition isn’t working for your goals, you’re trying to make up Dan’s personal definition and replace the one that everyone else in English-speaking nations uses. You’re reaching here—and it’s intellectually dishonest of you to try to do this. You offered the standard accepted definition—now you don’t want the standard, accepted definition anymore, because it doesn’t support you—so you just deny the standard, accepted definition now. Again—just total, intellectual dishonesty.
Again, in all my dialogue with you, I have focused on one thing: Showing you your premise is baseless. You have not proven your premise yet in all this time, so I have no reason to assume I’m incorrect. Now you’re trying to claim I’ve been arguing that there is no god—something I have, in my text, clearly indicated I’m not attempting to argue. I even offered quotes to show that I pointed out clearly that there could be a god—but that your arguments for your god are unsupported and therefore not plausible.
You can’t defend against that. So now you’re trying to claim the argument has been me trying to prove to you that there is no god. But YOU came to this forum with YOUR claim that there IS a god. And I’ve only responded to your arguments.
Stephen, on the other hand, took on your god specifically to show he doesn’t exist—by logical contradiction. But that’s Stephen’s mode of argumentation—and not mine. You can’t say “you’re all saying…” because we’re not. We are all approaching it in different ways. And based on this latest post of yours, I would say my mode has been fairly successful, since you’re now attempting a redirection of the dialogue rather than focus on proving your premise.
Redirect away. You still have not proven the claim you came to this forum to support—that there is a god.
>I understand your positions,
Unfortunately, you don’t appear to have ever understood mine. You simply told me what my arguments were—without actually reading them. Arguing that your arguments for X are baseless is not the same as arguing that X cannot be true. You never understood this throughout the entire discussion; and I never realized this logic had escaped you until now.
>I don’t think there is anyone on this earth that doesn’t believe this man existed besides you Tracie.
My quote you are responding to: “First of all, I never said there was no Jesus. You assumed it, I’m guessing?”
Here is an excellent example of how you don’t care what I say—you’re just going to say I said whatever you wanted me to say. Why am I bothering to talk? You don’t hear what I actually say. You hear what you wish I said. Beyond that, there are a number of books available on the topic of Jesus’ existence. Many people don’t believe he existed. I think it’s possible. I don’t know. But whether or not Jesus lived is not relevant unless there is a god. And you have avoided showing god manifesting in reality so far—and the Jesus question is rendered moot until you can show there is a god.
Typo correction. When I wrote:
ReplyDelete>You proved the definition yourself—one who disbelieves in god is also an atheist.
I meant "provided" not "proved."
>Think of it another way. Imagine if a scientist publishes a paper called "Gravity Fairies and You: How those cute little critters keep you and I planted on the Earth" (pardon the borrow, Tracie).
ReplyDeleteNo need to pardon--I'm glad my metaphor is coming in helpful somewhere.
>”Of course I can scripturally back my claim that truth is preferable to lies
ReplyDeleteJust for grins, how about Psalm 15:2-5?
"He...who speaks the truth from his heart...will never be shaken"
Psalm 31:5 calls Yaweh "the God of truth"--which would seem to be placing a value on truth?
Psalm 45:4 describes God riding forth "victoriously in behalf of truth..." That sounds like the psalmist considers that god values truth?
Psalm 51:6 says that god "surely" desires truth in the "inner parts" of people.
Here's a really good one: Psalm 52: 3: "You love evil rather than speaking the truth."
It sounds to me that the Bible very much places a high value on truth. And I would say that it places a high value on truth over falsehood across the board. This makes verification for a Xian--knowing what he/she says is true--extremely important, I would think.
Dan, I hate to comment on one of your ridiculous tangents, but I can't help myself... You are just so obviously wrong.
ReplyDeleteTHEOS (θεός) is the Greek word for "deity, god".
So ATHEOS means "no deity, god".
THEISM is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.
So ATHEIST is the disbelief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.
So, wrong ...AGAIN...
Dan, the fact that you have to change the subject over and over again, ignore arguments that you have lost, and repeat arguments we have previously refuted, means that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE.
You have not won a SINGLE point, Dan. A SINGLE POINT IN A MONTH!
My Dearest Love Dan,
ReplyDeleteWell done, my good and faithful servant! I was a little nervous about the status of our relationship, but these last few comments of yours have put my heart at ease!
“We all sin and fall short Romans 3:23 I am a wretched sinner and deserve hell. ... we all sin, every last one of us.”
That's right, you bad boy! Believe it! This is my favorite lie of all! Nothing promotes the distrust and discord I thrive on more than assuming everyone is evil!
“[discovering truth] is not what God wants us to do, can you back that statement up scripturally? Remember he did NOT want us to eat from the “tree of Knowledge” he wanted us to TRUST him. What is the meaning of science oh yea “Knowledge”. Hmmm coincidence, I think not. ...
Prove that science, or the pursuit there of, is desired by God for us to seek then the Truth of the Lord.”
Oh, my glorious servant and lover! It brings a tear to my eye to see you defending my deceptions so boldly!
I especially loved how you applied the spin doctoring I have taught you in the case of telling those meddlesome rational atheists exactly what they are:
“a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God
...
Let’s get to the root of the matter, no pun intended. The root word of “A” means no or without as in abyss - without bottom; achromatic - without color; anhydrous - without water. Other examples asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism
This can not be denied even by your pragmatism.
Theist or Greek word theos means God we can all agree. You are all claiming by calling yourselves atheists that there is “NO GOD” the burden of proof is on you and your name. In Greek you would be called atheos Defend your label or call yourselves something else. Atheist means NO GOD no matter what you may think it means, that is what it means. You can not rewrite something to fit your viewpoint, ... You are all lost in a delusion that the word means something else.”
I just love how you brazenly redefined “atheist” to fit your viewpoint, then in the same paragraph, accused them of doing just that! The bold recklessness of your lies will turn away so many Christian souls, and drive them straight into the warm, welcoming arms of my eternal Hell!
Oh Dan, my cuddly wumpkins! I just wuv wuv wuv you... to death! ;)
For My Glory (and maybe Dan's, too),
Satan
A Bible bum bumbled by
ReplyDeleteAnd mumbled some dumb fumbled lie
His stumbling caused some faith to crumble
Perhaps he should have been more humble
I don't know if Dan will post any more or not. But I just keep thinking of how really difficult it is for me to internalize what just occurred.
ReplyDeleteDan just posted a dictionary defintion of "atheist" that reflects correct, common usage (not some jargon term or some rarely used definition at the bottom of the list in the entry) as "the definition" he was putting foward for "atheist."
Then, after nobody contests it, and everyone agrees with him, he turns around and contests his own definition in his very next post.
It was such an obviously open dishonest reversal that I'm still stunned.
On top of it, what really just confounded me most of all was the realization that he'd rather do something this sure to make him lose face 100 percent, than to just say, "Oh, I guess I didn't know what an atheist was. I must have had a misconception of the word."
I recall my glory days as a fundy out to win souls. And I remember how _really_ hard it felt to admit I was wrong about something. And watching this last episode with Dan just really reminds me of how happy I am to not be involved in that any longer. I no longer have to become defensive and say absurd things to try to "back myself out of a corner" while having a discussion. I can actually back out gracefully by saying, "Oh, guess I was wrong."
I recall on another forum some fundamentalists accused me of not being able to admit when I was wrong. I put in links in my very next post where I had admitted to others I was wrong. If I'm wrong, I admit it. It's really not even hard. And I have publicly posted many times as well my gratitude for someone pointing out my error. Although it may be somewhat embarrassing in the moment, the truth is, it saves me in the long run from continuing to say something that is incorrect (and maybe some people just think I'm ignorant and don't tell me).
The person who actually shows me I'm wrong is doing me a favor in the long haul. If they do it gracefully, I'm appreciative; but even if they don't, I still have to be glad I found out I was laboring under a misconception or a false assumption.
In this case, Dan had it _right_ the first time, but then threw down something wrong and false, just because what was "right" wasn't in agreement with his misconception of what an "atheist" actually is. All because this is, in large part, what Xianity does to some people. I don't know if he was like this before he became a Xian. But Xianity either made him this defensive; or it provides a haven to perpetuate his unhealthy defensive behavior--which is a huge impediment to personal growth.
Regardless, a lot of people were mean to Dan--whether justified or not, I'm not judging; but I have been in his shoes, and it sucks. I just didn't know how badly at the time. And I feel honest sympathy for his position. I know he won't have any epiphanies in the state of mind he's in now; but maybe one day he'll get the idea that it's OK to "not know" everything; and maybe that will help him get comfortable with not feeling like he has to use "god" as the God of the Gaps any longer.
Xianity does that to you. They tell you so many times what "you believe" that you no longer can discern what you _actually_ believe for yourself. The word "atheist" is like this. Austin Cline has a clip from an article from another fundy at his site describing how there is really no such thing as an atheist. And I also recently saw an article at Associated Content from a Xian doing exactly what Dan just did. She first wrote the definition of atheist as "one who disbelieves in god" and then went on to say that agnostics "aren't sure" (wrong definition), and that "atheists" are people who say they _know_ there is no god--they are sure. And I couldn't believe that she really _read_ the definition before she wrote that. As a Xian, you _do_ read it, but the info doesn't sink in. You read it, but you get out of it, only your preconceived idea of what you've been told it means. I'm betting that even as Dan posted "one who disbelieves..." the idea of what that _actually_ meant didn't sink in. When I pointed out what "belief" means (vs. Knowledge), I think it really was just too much for the meme to cope with in the moment--so it just had a small meltdown and threw out false absurdity--a made up definition that totally contrasted the _real_ definition in order to justify itself. It really is a viscious mind parasite for some people. It's not that they are choosing not to hear you--it's that they really are, at the time, incapable. You say "red"--they hear "green." And you can say it as loud and clear as you like--they really only can hear/see green at that moment. I have no doubt that Dan really has a unique perspective of the dialogue that actually occurred at this forum--and that nobody else here would share anything remotely close to his interpretation. I could go on, but I'll stop here.
Sorry for the long note; but I just felt it should be said, and that it might best be said by someone who has walked for some years, herself, in something akin to Dan's shoes.
For anyone interested that may not have noticed yet, Dan has moved to the "Christian Love" thread.
ReplyDeleteHow appropriate.
Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the conversation had moved.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say: “I am an agnostic atheist.” I want to point out that I wasn’t trying to be sneaky withholding this, the point simply never came up before as relevant. But if you go back and reread my posts, you’ll see I’ve supported the agnostic/atheist stance throughout my posts:
ReplyDelete“Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. In other words, if I do not actively adopt a belief in god, I am an atheist. This means that people who, for example, say “I’m not sure if I believe there is a god or not,” are atheists—because they do not have belief in god. They lack belief in god, and are by definition atheists. Many people confuse this with agnosticism, but an agnostic is a statement of knowledge, and not comparable to an atheist, because they deal with different realms (belief versus knowledge)—they’re apples and oranges. Most agnostics would also be atheists, because they feel there is insufficient evidence to support a determination of god’s existence. An agnostic could still believe in god, but it is odd to say any valid/pertinent information on the subject is totally lacking (agnostic)—so I’ll believe it anyway (deist/theist).”
And I also brought up agnostic theists as well:
“In fact, if you truly believe faith is required, then you're arguing for agnosticism--claiming, in fact, that nobody can know there is a god--they simply have to believe without the knowledge to support the belief. You would be an agnostic theist if this is your stance.”
I have never claimed that agnosticism and atheism were incompatible, and in fact, from these quotes, claimed clearly that theism/atheism can either be based on, or disconnected from agnosticism.
If you’d have asked me if I am an agnostic, I would not have denied it. You just never asked. I’m also, for the record, however, an atheist. And I’ve never denied that either.
You appear to be ignorant regarding the definitions of these labels and their implications. And I recommend perhaps informing yourself a little before you continue to post on this topic. I’m not trying to be mean—but you’re really making yourself look foolish because you’re spewing ideas about topics you obviously haven’t studied or spent any time investigating. And you have a forum here of atheists, who know what an atheist is, and you’re trying to debate that nobody in a forum full of atheists knows what an atheist is or what atheism means. Just some humble advice that could be helpful.
Dang! POsted at the wrong comment section again!
ReplyDelete>Tracie ” And when I saw that what was true conflicted with my belief in god's existence, then truth won out.” prove this statement.
ReplyDelete_My belief_ in god was founded on many different things. One was, for example, that the Bible was god’s word. When I realized that there is no claim from god that this is his word, I was left with the reality that people put this book together and claimed god endorsed their actions. _My belief_ in god was that actions of people required clear authorization from god. This was lacking—and created a _truth_ that conflicted with _my belief_ in god. Therefore, “what was true” conflicted with “my belief in god.” There are many more examples I could provide, but this one should be enough to illustrate my point.
>“Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. ” this is a false statement, Tracie look at the definition you can’t change it. They deny the existence of God. I like you Tracie I hope God will touch both you and Stephen someday in your lives.
Here is the definition you provided:
a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God
Not trying to be condescending, but since you’ve disregarded this so often, I have to ask: Do you know what the conjunction “OR” means, and how it differs from “AND”?
One who disbelieves the existence of god is an atheist. One who denies the existence of god is an atheist. One who does both is an atheist. A person who does either or both is an atheist.
I disbelieve the existence of god. I am an atheist by the definition above.
If I said: One who drives a truck or a car is a driver. Would you say that if someone only drove a car, and never a truck—that they are _not_ then a driver? You’re being argumentative here for the sake of being argumentative, and there is no point to it. It only derails us from the discussion: Does god exist?
Why are you creating a diversion? If I think your belief in god is unjustified, and I don’t believe in god’s existence; what difference does it make what you label me? Again—you can call me “Satanist” if you like. Whatever label you slap on me--even if it’s clearly a misconception (such as this latest distortion)—I don’t really care. The point is: I think your claim of god’s existence is unsupported and based on irrational reasoning. And that’s what I’ve been arguing all this time. Suddenly, you decided, that if you can label me something different, that somehow changes my claim that your beliefs are unsupported?
Call me “X” if it makes you feel better. It doesn’t matter to me at all. The problem remains that you still have failed to prove your premise. And it still appears as though no god exists.
And to make the point about “atheist” as crystal clear as possible:
Many people claim they are abducted by aliens.
They present “evidence” of this.
The evidence they present is extremely interpretive and inconclusive.
They show nothing that proves aliens even exist, let alone are abducting people.
Therefore, I do not believe aliens are abducting people. And based on the total lack of evidence, it appears the odds are slim to none their claims are based in reality—since nothing in reality justifies what they’re claiming.
It is logically possible that one day aliens may come forward and claim accountability for abducting all these people; in which case, I would have to now believe aliens actually _were_ abducting these people (or the aliens are lying).
But until aliens come forward to say this is occurring, I’d have to be pretty gullible and have extremely low standards of evidence in order to accept the current claims that aliens exist and are abducting people.
There is a clear lack of evidence alien abductions are occurring (agnostic, knowledge claim); and so it makes no sense to believe alien abductions are occurring (atheist, disbelief).
For practical purposes, I am willing to say “Alien abductions don’t occur.” (denial); However, logically speaking, I do allow the caveat that although there is currently no reason for anyone to believe this tripe, one day a reason could surface that would change that.
Plug in god, and you’ve got my stance on god’s existence.
I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. I am whatever you want to call me. But no matter what you call me: I believe your claims are tripe. And you’ve offered nothing more convincing than: “Well, logically speaking, a god _could_ exist—you can’t deny that!”
Congratulations, you’re belief in god is as well supported as alien abduction.
And again with the wrong comment section... :(
ReplyDeleteAre you guys for real why did you block me so I can't see your site?
ReplyDeleteWhy does it only point to Google.com homepage when I go to your site?
Take it off or I will tell everyone I can about what you are doing.
You are playing unfair by calling me names and then not allowing me to comment.