Thursday, March 29, 2007

What part of omnipotent does Dan continue not to understand?

Right on cue, Dan Marvin has tried to respond to my last couple of posts about the Problem of Evil. Here's one typical passage.

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.

Sharp-eyed readers will note this is the very point I addressed and destroyed in my original post. Dan does not recognize that he has in no way refuted me. As usual, he's simply dodged the issue. If God were omnipotent, he could have given us a full understanding of sin, unrighteousness, and evil and still created a world in which no children ever get raped. That's why omnipotence is, like, way kewl. You can do anything, right?

Dan also seems to think my solution — simply that God could have created no human beings with a propensity for pedophilia — constitutes the complete removal of free will and establishment of a "dictatorship." Yes, Dan is exactly this stupid. Creating no humans who can rape a child is no more an imposition on free will than to have created no humans who could fly by flapping their arms or breathe underwater or teleport from one side of the planet to another. I desperately want to be able to teleport. Think of all the time saved sitting in traffic. But I can't! Oh no! There's no free will!

(For those in the crowd working at Dan's level of understanding, that last bit was snark.)

41 comments:

  1. Atheist claim to prove that God doesn’t exist by stating that the bible has mistakes in it. NO it doesn’t

    An analogy would be a debate about: Is there a president of the United States.

    My position would be YES there is a President of the United States and furthermore his name is George W. Bush.

    Martin’s position (as well as all atheists) would be NO there is no President of the United States and to prove it let me tell you about the failed policies George W. Bush in Iraq and giving tax breaks to the rich and not the poor…

    This is not an augment about the President of the United States not existing this is merely gripes, your complaints about the President of the United States but that does nothing to prove that the President doesn’t exist, and the same is true for Christianity.

    To sit and argue about the Bible and how it’s full of mistakes or that there are different interpretations or translations or God allows certain evils to happen. That is not an argument to prove that God does not exist. These are complaints and gripes.

    Now if you want to have a debate about the historicity or the authenticity and reliability of scriptures then fine we can do that and you can bring those things to the table. If the debate was about the problem with Christianity or the faultiness of Christianity then fine bring those assaults if you want to. But to prove your position of the existence of a GOD or the belief there of this does not prove that God does not exist.

    Stay on the subject all, Martin, Andrew, Tracie, and Stephen I say there is a God and has proven my position by examples of creation such as creation has a creator and butterflies and Chocolate or my child’s eyes and love, happiness and much, much more but you have failed to give me ONE argument to back up your belief of the nonexistence of God.

    IF you are sitting on a fence like Tracie and Stephen claiming it is possible there is a God then you are agnostic and do not “Know” for sure, but if you claim to be an Atheist (AE) back up your position and prove there is No God because you have a belief of no existence of a God. Folding your arms (in a debate) and repeating prove your position Dan, prove it Dan, this is not any way to debate. You must state reasons for your position. You so far have all lost the debate. Being here I am at the disadvantage because there is no judge or mediator and you all pounce on me with personal attacks and such but that means you have LOST the debate. (Look at any rules of debating) you all have LOST. Swallow that or come up with a position for your beliefs.

    I am willing to debate with you on your name of AE and what your position of your beliefs are but all I am hearing here is gripes and complaints of how the bible is flawed and God allows evil and such. This is not proof of any existence of God. For the record, and we can go to a third party or mediator for this, but so far you have failed to state you argument in a belief of no existence of God.

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan, you aren't even trying not to be dumb any more. This is the most pitiful "Oh no, better change the subject with a straw man" dodge you've engaged in yet.

    Martin’s position (as well as all atheists) would be NO there is no President of the United States and to prove it let me tell you about the failed policies George W. Bush in Iraq and giving tax breaks to the rich and not the poor…

    No, this isn't the position of me, or of all atheists, or of any atheists, you lying little turd. I can SEE George W. Bush on TV. If I wanted to, I could go to Washington DC and try to see him in person at a press conference, tour, or other public appearance. I can HEAR George W. Bush when he gives speeches. There is hard, tangible evidence of Bush's existence as a living breathing human. I don't have to adopt a belief system that runs, in your words, "contrary to human logic" to have proof of Bush's existence. (Though I confess I'd have to if I were to support his policies.)

    Are you suggesting there are photos, videos, and audio recordings of your God speaking? Are you suggesting that there is a way for me to meet your God in the flesh, face to face, so that his existence is every bit as unambiguously clear as that of the president's? Because you know, up till know, you've been saying things like we have to have faith, and that the only way to receive the proof we want of your God is to adopt beliefs that run "contrary to human logic". Remember, saying those things, Dan? Because you have this habit of flip-flopping on what you say quite a lot.

    Your arguments just get lamer and more desperate every time you post, Dan. You are easily the most stubbornly inept apologist any of us has ever encountered. You keep getting it wrong, wrong, wrong, but you keep trying all the same. You're like a tragic clown show, where the clown keeps falling on his face and breaking his nose, and while it may be funny for the first few times you see it, after a while, you just wince and wish he would stop already.

    ...so far you have failed to state you argument in a belief of no existence of God.

    Okay, here it is. I do not believe in the existence of God because those who do believe in God have failed to meet their burden of proof. The proofs you think you have offered ("butterflies and Chocolate or my child’s eyes and love, happiness and much, much more") are not proofs of your God any more than they are proofs of Gus the Invisible Cosmic Rabbit. Why don't you prove to me Gus didn't create your child's eyes?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Atheist claim to prove that God doesn’t exist by stating that the bible has mistakes in it. NO it doesn’t

    Dan. Please stop lumping atheist into one group. We are not a homogenous group. Say something like: "It seems some of you..."

    We can't physically prove your god doesn't exist just as we cannot physically prove fairies and unicorns do not exist. We can show that there is no physical proof, and therefore, it is only logical to disbelieve. We can also prove logically that certain attributes of your god are illogical, and we have done so.

    The Bible's is not a holy document as you so often claim. We have shown its true origins are circumspect. Check out this list of Biblical Contradictions.

    Your analogy is not an analogy. I agree with Martin. This just further demonstrates your willful ignorance.

    We KNOW the president exists. I have personally met him twice. Once at an airport when he was running for Governor of Texas and again in 2000 at his last rally in Midland, TX, before his inauguration.

    I can prove it. I have photographic evidence.

    No one has ever proven God's existence. The feelings and interpretations you have of the world are not evidence. They are feelings. If you were a prosecutor trying to convict an accused murderer because you felt that he did it, you would be laughed out of court.

    We have standards of evidence in the modern world (based on reason and logic). And after years of investigation, I have found that your religion does not meet those standards. And no one has been able to convince me otherwise. And no one has ever been able to convince me the religion should be immune from the standards we apply to everything else.

    Read this book. But I imagine you won't. You probably won't even consider it. You will most likely pass final judgment on it (as you do anything that threatens your beliefs) before you investigate. This kind of willful ignorance is proof of your indoctrination, and it is why we have absolutely no respect for you, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. tracie harris3/29/2007 3:36 PM

    >Atheist claim to prove that God doesn’t exist by stating that the bible has mistakes in it.

    The claim that the Bible has mistakes is actually secondary to the claim that god is nonexistant. Most atheists disbelieve the claims that god exists because there is no objectively verified manifestation of god. GWB manifests. God, Santa, and fairies do not manifest. Things that manifest are said to exist. Things that do not exist all have one thing in comment: they do not manifest.

    When your god manifests, then there will be something to believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I don't believe in atheists.

    This isn't because I haven't met people who claim the title, but because such a person cannot be. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. I will ask you two questions: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? I think I can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

    Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

    Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

    Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

    To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

    If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

    The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic"--one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

    It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "'God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later."

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  6. tracie harris3/29/2007 4:09 PM

    >Now if you want to have a debate about the historicity or the authenticity and reliability of scriptures then fine we can do that and you can bring those things to the table.

    I did. I showed two substantial passages where the oldest manuscripts do not contain verses that are in your Bible. That destroys the "reliability." Reliable documents don't contain forgeries.

    >But to prove your position of the existence of a GOD or the belief there of this does not prove that God does not exist.

    But without a manifesting god to examine, we have nothing to discuss but your speculations.

    >Stay on the subject all, Martin, Andrew, Tracie, and Stephen I say there is a God and has proven my position by examples of creation such as creation has a creator and butterflies and Chocolate or my child’s eyes and love, happiness and much, much more

    In response I offer my prior quote comparing your idea of the existence of god to the idea of alien abduction:

    "The evidence they present is extremely interpretive and inconclusive."

    "They show nothing that proves aliens even exist, let alone are abducting people."

    >IF you are sitting on a fence like Tracie and Stephen claiming it is possible there is a God then you are agnostic and do not “Know” for sure, but if you claim to be an Atheist (AE) back up your position and prove there is No God because you have a belief of no existence of a God.

    From same prior post addressing this point:

    "...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.

    "...Your belief in god's existence is...as logically supported as alien abduction."

    You are being wholly disingenuous. There is a lack of direct, objectively verifiable physical manifestation for Santa Claus. Do you believe claims that Santa Claus "exists"? There is lack of direct, objectively verifiable physical manifestation for fairies. Do you believe claims that fairies "exist"? There is a lack of direct, objectively verifiable physical manifestion for Big Foot. Do you believe Big foot "exists"? There is a lack of direct, objectively verifiable manifestation for aliens. Do you believe aliens "exist"?

    In fact, there is far more of what you claim to value as "evidence" that aliens are abducting people than that your god "exists."

    You have failed so far to even define what you mean by existence. But I know there is only one thing I can think of that manifests in the same way your god manifests: "nothing."

    Nothing also has no physical attributes. Nothing also cannot be verified to manifest using the physical senses nor any instrument known to science. Your description of your god's manifestation in physical reality is, not surprisingly, exactly the same as the manifestation of "nothing."

    ***

    Finally, I've been posting at every comment section attempting to catch up. But I wanted to make sure this gets noted, so I'm addressing it here as well:

    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?

    ***

    Logically speaking, your god cannot be said to NOT exist in the same way Santa Claus cannot be said to NOT exist.

    And I believe your god exists as much as I believe Santa exists, since there is equal evidence for the objectively verified manifestation of both.

    You seem to see this as some sort of "victory" over the atheists at this forum? Your god is as logically feasible as Santa Claus. You win.

    Now, practically speaking, it is as valid for anyone to say "god does not exist" as it is to say "Santa Claus does not exist"--because there is no objectively verifiable, nonsubjective, observable manifestation in the realm of physical existence for either.

    I'm not sure you're actually getting this point, however.

    For you to say that the default response to a claim that X exists is to believe it until it is proven _untrue_, means that you must then, in order to avoid hypocrisy, believe in fairies, Santa, Big Foot, Aliens, Crystal Power, ghosts, genies, and so on.

    As Matt so rightly asked: Is your stance that the default response to a claim is to believe it until it's proven false?

    If this is NOT your stance, then you have to prove your claim god exists. If this IS your stance, then you are forced to accept the existence of a lot of really nutty things.

    ReplyDelete
  7. tracie harris3/29/2007 4:10 PM

    Again, just to top it off:

    Unless you can show a god exists, any claims regarding what god does, says or intends, are not founded on a verified premise, but on mere speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin,

    Oh, yes, CB Dan Y-B Marvin, I DO want to talk about "the authenticity and reliability of scriptures." In fact, I can't tap these keys fast enough. Come on, Dan, bring it on, you lying little coward. I bring 38 years of biblical research, BOY, what do you bring? Faith? Faith is sh**t. So far, you lying little BOY, the ONLY evidence you bring to bear is that compilation of plagiarized lies. OMG, Dan, do you realize what you said? Bring it on!

    I recall for you and the world, Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin, I challenged you to do JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO DEBATE! You claim the bible says Jesus existed. I challenged you to prove it. You ran, like the yellow-back you are, and NEVER ANSWERED ME. You never answered me. Again, you lying, cowardly little BOY, you never answered me. Answer me now, CB Dan Y-B Marvin, or GET OFF THIS SITE.

    I, Otto, charge you with lying and cowardly conduct. You have made charges you have NEVER substantiated, you have been challenged to do so and you have NEVER done so. Now you dare, YOU DARE, to state we have not been on topic. You thereby demonstrate that not only are you no scholar or gentleman, but you aren't even a man by the Southern Code.

    Your 3/29 3:55 PM post is your most off topic piece of sh**t yet, you lying coward. I challenged you to back the statement YOU made that there is proof Jesus existed. Show us.

    ANSWER ME, YOU COWARD! Where is your proof? YOU made the claim, you MUST BACK IT UP OR BE A LIAR. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?

    Show us NOW. Show us now or GET OFF THIS SITE!

    This is the ONLY statement on this post: Show us the proof you stated you have that Jesus existed. Do not come back with some pathetic copied sh**t about how you can't understand what the word atheist means.

    You have one thing to answer. Only one. ANSWER ME! YOU made the statement, I didn't. SHOW me your proof!

    Now, Dan, is that emphatic enough for you?

    Another in an increasing number of unanwered challengers of Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin,

    Otto

    ReplyDelete
  9. To all the readers of this site:

    I apologize to you all for my going postal on Dan Marvin. (But not to Dan) I'm a nurse and another one of my patients just recently died in my arms. His family had rejected him because he was gay and had Aids. His church had excommunicated him for his 'sin.' No one was there when he died but me.

    How sad that mine was the only face he saw as he died and not one of the ones he loved and cared for. I'm tired of being a surrogate family member for victims who have been rejected by their families because of the filthy lies they 'believe.'

    Dan's stupid sh**t was just too much to take after that. I really do like this blog and appreciate the freedom to read and discuss the topics addressed here.

    Keep up the good work,

    Otto

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan,

    I've mentioned before that we'd prefer to talk to original thinkers, parroting Ray Comfort isn't useful.

    In this case, your entire post (or as much of it as I cared to read) was a word-for-word rendition of Ray's argument about atheists. Did you cut and paste this from one of his sites, or did you actually transcribe it from the video?

    I transcribed it (which requires considerably more thought than the method I suspect you used) and rebutted it COMPLETELY at the wiki:

    Please go read it.

    Unless you can offer something new, then you are just as wrong as Ray Comfort - and sufficiently less intelligent.

    He at least had the understanding to use his own words.

    Don't get me wrong, I've grown rather tired of your words - but I was tired of Ray's before you even showed up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Matt said ”Unless you can offer something new, then you are just as wrong as Ray Comfort - and sufficiently less intelligent.”

    Matt, Matt, Matt,

    Remember saying this: ”Considering that Martin and I have both shown you how God could have done better - and Martin's was so well done, feel free to not even look for mine - we have, even though we bear no burden, demonstrated that your position is unsupported. Replace Martin with the word Ray and we are equal then.

    Um Matt are you now riding the coat tails of Martin or, like me, are you tired of repeating yourself. Since Martin’s argument worked for you so did Ray’s worked for me. I put it in quotes for that reason, it just saves time for the argument.

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nevertheless, Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin,

    Ignore me all you want, YOU made the statement you can prove Jesus existed:

    "He did exist provable through either public or private records." - 3/23/2007 4:50 PM

    DO IT, Dan, or SHUT UP. Prove it, now, Dan, NOW.

    YOU have made a statement that you WILL NOT SUBSTANTIATE. You are a liar. I formally challenged you to back up YOUR statement with PROOF on 3/23/2007 6:14 PM. All can read this, all can see it. Do you understand what that means Dan? It means EVERYONE who reads this post knows you are a lying coward who WILL NOT FACE YOUR CHALLENGER.

    What it means, Dan, is that NOTHING you say about ANYTHING ELSE has any meaning, not the sh**t you copy from other sites, not the made up statistics you cite, NOTHING. Don't you understand that? If your basic premise CANNOT or WILL NOT be supported, you are full of SH**T. You are a LIAR.

    This is your nemesis speaking, Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin: YOU ARE A LIAR AND A COWARD. As it says in that filthy compilation of poorly translated plagiarized lies: "By their fruits you shall know them."

    Condemned by the very book of porn you know so little about. The irony reeks almost as much as your yellow stain, you lying cowardly little puppy.

    Give it up, BOY, I'm not letting you rest until you DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU COULD DO: Prove Jesus existed. That's all.

    I'm waiting, BOY. So is everyone else.

    Another in an ever-growing list of unanswered challengers of Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin,

    Otto

    ReplyDelete
  14. Of course Ray's argument worked for you, Dan. You're both dishonest and intellectually crippled.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Otto,

    I wasn't going to address you anymore but here we go: The Bible itself is public and private records The New Testament were private letters. Moses wrote about Jesus, Isaiah 53 talks at great length about Jesus some 700 years before he was born (Public) and countless other things that points to Jesus existing including your own birth date referencing it.

    (It appears Ottovstar has a reputation of trying to antagonize bloggers to the point of being unproductive, his anger level is apparent and it appears he is battling something deeper here then just a debate on salvation. Possibly his job, it takes a special person to be a nurse and the nurses in my family would never even have this type of behavior manifest itself because they understand the job and what’s expected and that they are NOT in control of fate of patients. They are humble warm loving caring nurturing God fearing people. Maybe a basketball coach is more up your alley.)

    When I goggled his name I got this from one of the bloggers so he is in a pattern of hostility.

    “It sounds as if Ottovstar either just had bad philosophy teachers or otherwise didn't bother to try to learn much from his philosophy courses (maybe because he was unaware of his own ignorance and didn't think he needed the teaching, which is unfortunately typical of older students who pride themselves on the "healthy dose of real life experience" which, they fancy, sets them apart not only from their fellow students but from those too who are trying to teach them). He doesn't even seem to have learned much from Socrates whom he clearly admires. For one thing, a discipline as a whole is not to be diparaged on account of worthless practitioners of it. Second of all, it's not the case, as Ottovstar claims, that the "only question" Socrates asked was "how shall we live?" That's clear from Plato's dialogues, even if we look only at the so-called early dialogues. It's a wonder too that Ottovstar seems unaware that his objection against philosophy is older than Socrates himself and was (if we trust Plato) actually *answered* by Socrates himself. Ottovstar seems to think he is too old (or maybe already too *smart*) for philosophy. Hasn't he wondered why his hero Socrates never thought so? Maybe Ottovstar is simply more interested in reading novels than doing real philosophy.

    By Anonymous, at 6:13 AM, December 10, 2006”

    This one is from him: “In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2007 5:26 PM PDT

    Ottovstar says:

    Wow!

    How easy it is to see conspiracy around every corner when you can believe in an invisible guy in the sky! I guess if you're dense enough to base your life on a dirty little myth penned by power mad pederasts, you can 'see' 'coincidences' and vaguely sinister 'happenings' just about anywhere, eh "Spiritgirl?"

    Read the freaking guidelines of the website, you poor fool. Cyndi K. said nothing that is not COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Next thing you're going to say is I'm Ken Kesey because I'm teasing Cydni K. over the Merry Pranksters. Ooooo! Maybe I am! (Wish I was, he was brilliant) Don't try to be another Panicos and 'see' things that don't exist. It should be enough for you to believe in the lies of christianity. There's plenty of screwed up crap on this planet because of that filth. You don't need to make up more. “


    He has anger issues and has a typical troubled soul like other atheist we know i.e. Martin. He almost encourages this type of response by his behavior (IF he is male I can only assume) but I will (in a proper debate) state my case and argue my points civilly although not grammatically correct all the time. You declared war on God don’t you understand why you feel the way you do sometimes? Perfect love is a constant confronter and I am only doing this with love so you can possibly look inside your heart and breathe and face the demons.

    Moving on

    Tracie said ” 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.”


    Tracie you are making my job easy. This was the point that I was making so it is in the clear now. If I were to ask you do you believe in God you would answer NO i.e. NO God I clarify so you don’t think there is a God and you would answer NO unless you are agnostic and then you would answer I DON’T KNOW. Great! that is in the clear you do not believe in the existence of God. Do you have any evidence or theory to back that up besides the ignorance fallacy that you have been given up to now?

    Santa Clause was a fictional character made up for marketing purposes by Coke-a-Cola. Proof and provable that he DOES NOT EXIST; do you have the same for GOD?

    Prove your claim, you made the statement ” since there is equal evidence for the objectively verified manifestation of both.” Joking, so you have no evidence of your claim that there is NO GOD got it.

    You are wrong to believe you have to dumb it down for me and that is just not the case, I will not submit to your argument because it is false not because I do not understand do YOU understand? I want to give you a big hug, you crack me up.

    Again, just to top it off:

    Unless you can show God does not exist, any claims regarding what god doesn’t, says or intends, are not founded on a verified premise, but on mere speculation. GOT IT?

    Martin squeaks out: ” You're both dishonest and intellectually crippled.”

    Prove it, puddin!

    First your debating skills are atrocious second you’re not addressing the debate on hand. You claim that there is NO God is unsubstantiated, can you find anything to back that claim up besides gripes and complaints about me and/or God? Anything at all something we can discuss besides that I am a clown or God is immoral. If not I declare victory and we can move on to newer subjects like changing your name to Agnostic Experience.

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  16. Long time ago Martin claimed this to me and I can only laugh now.

    We're all for being nice folks and carrying the torch of positive atheism. Atheists, contrary to preconceptions, can usually be counted on for honesty.

    Who are you trying to convince here, yourself maybe? Remember God knows your thought life.

    Tonight remember to ask yourself Tracie and others “how important is it that I truly know the truth?”

    Then if it is very important to you then do as the Bible says to do and get on your knees like you are proposing to God and truly repent and turn away from sinning and give him your life and put your faith and trust in Jesus with your entire life. He will manifest himself to you, that is his promise to you. Unless you think he is a liar then nothing will happen.

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  17. Look, asshole: an appeal to ignorance is a claim that because there is no evidence for claim X, a positive claim Y must be true. It is, under no circumstances, not an appeal to ignorance to claim that because there is no evidence for X therefore it is not reasonable to hold a belief in X. That is the null hypothesis, you irritating shitbucket, and not an appeal to ignorance.

    Truly, truly I say unto you: denying the truth of a claim in the absence of evidence for that claim is not a positive claim. It is a negative claim, the default claim, the null hypothesis.

    There is no evidence that Bigfoot exists. Is the burden of proof on me, the "abigfootist" to prove that he doesn't exist? Am I making a positive claim when I say that, given adequate evidence for a group of giant hominids living in the Pacific Northwest, I think that there are none? (Hint: The answer is "no.")

    Oh, and nice dodge with Otto, there. I admire how you didn't address a single goddamned thing he said but instead dabbled in some amateur psychoanalysis and ad hominem attacking.

    Santa Clause was a fictional character made up for marketing purposes by Coke-a-Cola. Proof and provable that he DOES NOT EXIST; do you have the same for GOD?

    Santa Claus, you mental midget, is a mythological being based in part on an actual person, a third century bishop whose nocturnal altruism (giving stuff to people anonymously at night) was seized and mythologized down the centuries. He became attached to Christmas in a number of countries, though the myths vary by location. He was co-opted by Coca-Cola (not "Coke-a-Cola," dipshit) in the early 20th century to help sell Coke in the winter, though they were not the first company to use the Santa iconography for that kind of purpose. They just slapped him on cans and have been doing it ever since.

    Then if it is very important to you then do as the Bible says to do and get on your knees like you are proposing to God and truly repent and turn away from sinning and give him your life and put your faith and trust in Jesus with your entire life. He will manifest himself to you, that is his promise to you. Unless you think he is a liar then nothing will happen.

    So what you're saying is...Believe in god, then he'll show himself to you, and then you can believe in him?

    You have to be the dumbest person I've ever run across. And I've run across a lot of dumb people.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin,

    You filthy little pig. How dare you speak to ME in that manner. The bible is not proof of sh**t.

    You slimy, filthy little slug, since you cannot look a MAN in the face and chose instead to sneak around the web like some filthy little masturbating pervert in the shadows google the names of:

    Dr. Robert M. Price
    Brian Flemming.

    These are just two of the CONTEMPORARY scholars who have shown what MANY OTHERS throughout the years have CLEARLY demonstrated: the bible is a poorly translated piece of sh**t copied from better told legends, fairy tales, and cultural stories. Its clear forgery would cause its IMMEDIATE dismissal in ANY court as evidence of ANYTHING other than another human-hating screed of pornographic filth. This is what ANY person who has ever bothered to look further into this book has learned.

    There is NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE Jesus The Christ existed you ignorant, slimy little slug. NO PUBLIC RECORD DOCUMENTS ANY 'Jesus son of Mary and Joseph' ANYWHERE in Jewish or Roman records, and pervert, they kept impecable records of that type.

    The date of my birth has NOTHING to do with your sick, human-hating fantansies, you filthy pervert. READ, READ, READ, you ignorant cracker. And not some other pervert's web site, you sneaking slime. READ and LEARN why we use the present dating system.

    Do not EVER speak of my job again, you disgusting lying slimy freak. I was not addressing you, I was addressing the Ladies and Gentlemen of this site. YOU are not fit to lick the floors of my patients, you horrible human-hating closet queen. Too many men and women have died in my arms with the hate of hypocritical filth like you echoing in their ears. They have wept with a misery they did not deserve because FILTH like you had condemned them for their 'sins.'

    Because of the power mad pederasts who penned the porn you promote absolutely normal people have been ostracized and even killed in the name of 'God.' And don't simper that those Christians acted against the word of 'God.' That porn promotes hate, death, and destruction:

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came to not to send peace, but a sword.
    For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

    Fairy Tale Matthew 10:34-36, KJV, the worst translation of them all.

    These are but two hate-filled scripts for the sh**t that has been spewed from scum like you.

    I am SICK of the vile human-hating acts committed by scum like you in the name of a book of FAIRY TALES. People like you, who slither around on the net, one hand under the desk furiously pumping while they decry what they see and then condemn others to a life of misery for the VERY THINGS THEY THEMSELVES DO IN PRIVATE.

    Perfect love? You freak! What position do you want me to assume to demonstrate your Perfect love? I am angry because lying, ignorant filth like you have hurt and killed so many innocent people over the years and continue to do so even now.

    And sadly, in the end, when given the chance to prove what you said:
    "He did exist provable through either public or private records." 3/23/2007 4:50 PM, instead of doing so, you took some time off from skimming twinkie boy porn to google my name.

    You are a liar, a coward, and as you have shown to all, a slithering vile little sneak. You have proven nothing but what any sane, normal person knows: people who believe in and base their lives on fairy tales are the filthiest hypocrites of all.

    You are beneath contempt, you sad, ignorant, hypocritical little pervert.

    ReplyDelete
  19. tracie harris3/30/2007 10:07 AM

    >It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

    I can honestly say that I have never met an atheist who claims to know everything. Nor have I ever met an atheist whose atheism rests on the idea that everything is known. So, you’re starting out with a straw man. I don’t know any atheists who “think they know everything” or who use such an idea to support atheism. Again, you are ignorant about atheism, and you have no inclination to actually understand it; and you therefore are offering arguments against your “misconception of atheism” rather than actual atheism.

    >Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

    The problem here is that “knowledge we haven’t discovered” can’t be considered—because: We haven’t discovered it yet. In other words, there is no way we can talk intelligently about something for which we have no information. If there are fairies, but they haven’t been discovered yet—that means that we have no means of knowing or verifying anything about them. Any claims about fairies are, therefore, pulled out of thin air. Just like claims about god. For the same reason you don’t believe in fairies, atheists don’t believe in god.

    >"There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge.

    This is a question of a practically true statement verses a logically true statement. And this is something I think you have consistently failed to understand. If you ask me if my brakes are currently working on my car, I will answer “yes.” But let’s take a look at how that actually works when we examine it as a practical claim versus a logically true claim:

    Practical claim:
    My brakes worked this morning when I brought my car to work. Nothing has occurred that I am aware of that should have made my brakes stop working. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, my brakes are working, and “yes” is an honest answer.

    Logical claim:
    Although my brakes worked fine on the way into work this morning, I am not now testing out my brakes. I cannot confirm, also, that in the time I’ve been away from my car something has not occurred to impede my brake function (such as a brake line leak or someone cutting my brake lines). Therefore, I cannot say with logical certainty—while sitting at my desk--that my brakes on my car are, in fact, working fine.

    So, if you ask if my brakes are working on my car, and I say “yes,” have I lied? Or is my “yes” a valid response?

    Practically speaking, if there’s no manifestation of something, it doesn’t exist. Logically speaking, if there’s no manifestation of something, it doesn’t appear to exist, but we could be simply missing the manifestation. HOWEVER (and this is a HUGE however that you are consistently failing to comprehend), that in NO WAY indicates the thing does exist; and it is ABSOLUTELY NOT a reason to believe the thing exists. In fact, it offers ZERO support for the existence of the item, and only is indicating that nobody can be logically certain, because NO CLAIMS can be made about such an item. An item that does not manifest cannot be examined, and nothing can, therefore, be said about it that is not TOTAL SPECULATION BASED ON ZERO INFORMATION.

    Practically speaking: There is no god.

    Logically speaking: There may or may not be a god, but if there is, there is certainly no reason to believe in its existence, because it does not manifest in existent reality in any form we can confirm.

    >So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge,

    Again, you have to disregard the “or” conjunction entirely in your own provided definition to support this claim.

    >If I were to ask you do you believe in God you would answer NO

    Correct.

    >NO God I clarify so you don’t think there is a God

    Correct.

    >unless you are agnostic and then you would answer I DON’T KNOW.

    Incorrect. If the agnostic answers: “I don’t know,” then he is not responding to the question you asked, which was: Do you believe in god?

    You did not ask “Do you know there is a god?”

    If the agnostic means “I don’t know _if I believe_”—then he, obviously, does not have an active belief, since people who do believe in X are actually aware that they believe in X. So, the statement “I don’t know if I believe” is absolutely no different than “I don’t believe.” And in that case you have an agnostic atheist: He doesn’t know there is no god, but in the absence of any way to verify the speculative claim that “god exists”—he takes the most practical stance that belief in the existence of god has no basis.

    The agnostic deals with claims of knowledge. The atheist deals with claims of belief. You’re not getting the difference—even as the words come out of your mouth. Above, when you describe the agnostic yourself you say “know”; and when you describe the atheist response you use ”believe”. Do you not see a difference between what one believes and what one knows?

    >Do you have any evidence or theory to back that up besides the ignorance fallacy that you have been given up to now?

    Objectively verifiable, observable manifestation is the way people determine whether or not a thing exists in physical reality. The god you describe lacks such manifestation; and it only exists in the realm of your subjective perspective—based on your own descriptions of god. You could be using some weird idea of “exist”—but I’ve asked you several times what you think it means to “exist”—and I don’t think you’ve offered any disagreement with me on it. We talked about ideas existing, but you and I appeared to agree that the realm of ideas was not what you were claiming.

    And again, so far I have only rejected your ignorance fallacies: that since you don’t know how X really happened, it must be X(god). Can you show me where it’s logically supported that ignorance fallacies should be accepted as “fact” until proven false?

    You’re claiming god wrote the Bible. Your claiming god created the universe. You’re claiming all sorts of “knowledge” about god. But you have not provided an objectively verified, observable manifestation of that god. You can’t examine your god. I can’t examine your god. And so, neither of us can say one truthful word about “god”—because we have no god to examine. We have, literally, nothing in the manifesting reality of “existence” to support even the smallest claim regarding a god.

    Therefore, I reject your claims—because without a god to examine, nothing you say is based on anything but speculation—pulled right out of thin air, without a verified base or premise. And believing in your god is the equivalent, in that case, of believing in fairies, Santa (more on Santa later), aliens, Big Foot, and on and on.

    Again, as Matt pointed out: You either believe that (1) claims should be believed until they’re disproved; or you believe (2) claims should not be believed until they’re proved. What is your honest stance?

    (1) If you believe in these things without manifestations until they are proved to manifest (exist), then you have no basis to reject anyone else’s claims. In order to avoid blatant hypocrisy, you must believe in Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Santa, Big Foot, Fairies, and anything else I can pull out of thin air and claim exists.

    (2) If you believe that things that don’t manifest need to be proved to manifest (exist) before people should believe them, then your god shouldn’t be believed until he manifests.

    Do you believe in fairies or not? If not, then you know exactly why I don’t believe in your god. And I totally agree with you that my claim that there is no god is only as valid as anyone’s claim that there are no fairies. No more, no less. You can no more say fairies don’t exist, than I can say god does not exist. This is logically correct. But practically speaking there are no fairies. And god has been shown in an objectively verifiable, observable fashion to exist—exactly as much as fairies. Will you be logically consistent, then, and believe in fairies?

    >Santa Clause was a fictional character made up for marketing purposes by Coke-a-Cola. Proof and provable that he DOES NOT EXIST;

    Where do you get your information? A Coke-a-Cola character?

    http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/
    “The American version of the Santa Claus figure received its inspiration and its name from the Dutch legend of Sinter Klaas, brought by settlers to New York in the 17th century.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus
    “Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply ‘Santa’ is a legendary holiday character. The popular American form Santa Claus originated as a mispronunciation of Dutch Sinterklaas, which in turn is a contracted form of Sint Nicolaas (Saint Nicholas).”

    http://www.noradsanta.org/en/partners.php
    N.O.R.A.D. tracks Santa. Perhaps there’s a conspiracy between Coke and a major national scientific entity?

    Major news networks track Santa’s travels around the globe every Xmas on national (international) television via their weather tracking systems. Maybe they’re all “in on it” as well?

    Santa is fictional? Care to try and prove it? The “Santa exists” argument is absolutely as supportable as the “God exists” argument, and I’ll _gladly_ challenge you to disprove Santa. I’ll take the position Santa _does_ exist. And I’ll show you that you can’t disprove Santa exists. Then you can be logically consistent and believe in Santa and god.

    And yes, I say the same for god. Since there is no manifestation that you could possibly have independently verified (or you’re just keeping it a big secret?)—then your claims are made up—since I define “made up” as making unsupported speculative claims without any verification whatsoever—and that’s what you’ve done.

    >Unless you can show God does not exist, any claims regarding what god doesn’t, says or intends, are not founded on a verified premise, but on mere speculation. GOT IT?

    Yes, I got it. That’s why I don’t go around saying “god doesn’t want people to do X” or “god doesn’t do X.” I don’t “make claims” about what god doesn’t do. I only point out that claims that he _does_ anything are based on sheer speculation and illogic—they’re pulled out of thin air, and we all know that, since there is no god to examine in order to verify any claims whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  20. tracie harris3/30/2007 10:10 AM

    >Tonight remember to ask yourself Tracie and others “how important is it that I truly know the truth?”

    It is so important that I refuse to accept the speculation you offer as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Um Matt are you now riding the coat tails of Martin or, like me, are you tired of repeating yourself.

    One difference is that I answered your challenge, found Martin's answer to be better and rather than demanding you address every response, I voluntarily removed mine from the discussion to simplify things.

    The other difference is that you've offered no response to my rebuttal of Ray's comments - and I think I know why...

    You're waiting for Ray to address them, so he can do your thinking for you. Don't hold your breath, Ray doesn't have any reasonable response and, when challenged, he's been forced to admit that his banana argument was a failure.

    Additionally, I went to your blog and found no argument that chocolate proves god exists.

    I noticed that you also haven't agreed to a debate. If you need me to address something, send me an e-mail.

    I have no desire to continue wasting time with someone who cannot have an honest discussion, who cannot think for themselves and who parrots kindergarten theology with their fingers in their ears.

    -Matt

    ReplyDelete
  22. Otto said,

    ”Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin,

    You filthy little pig. How dare you speak to ME in that manner.


    Sounds a little “vile human-hating” to me with a dash of pride.

    You think I am a liar and you follow the prince of lies. We can debate these things or you can call me names. I gave my stance now you give your rebuttal, where is your proof of NO GOD I am waiting. Use debate rules, give a rebuttal and I will counter and you can counter me (with your evidence). I find it quite amusing how this is all one sided, I present my side of things and you all just call me names and such without any rebuttal. Are you all afraid or do you all not understand the principles of basic debating? Present your side of the argument. Not by complaining the other side is wrong but with your evidence for your belief.

    ”People like you, who slither around on the net, one hand under the desk furiously pumping while they decry what they see and then condemn others to a life of misery for the VERY THINGS THEY THEMSELVES DO IN PRIVATE.” How would you know unless you watch them commit these acts. Besides the burden of proof is on you, remember no fallacies. You can’t make a claim without evidence to back it up.

    The absurdity is you are basing your salvation on others. Just because a man does things that are an abomination to God, i.e. Ted haggard, by definition doesn’t make him a Christian. He is a dude just like you; you fail in Gods eyes also. To be a Christian there are rules to be one and if you do not follow the rules then you are not one, by definition. You would be considered a false convert. I can’t believe you are depending on people so much for your salvation.

    I was so used to saying Coke, you are right Coca-Cola but the character or “Image” of Santa was made by Coke. That image you have in your head is based on their rendition. St. Nicolas was a great man but should not be worshiped because he did what Jesus said to do. He did give all his money to the needy and that makes him a Christian. God still is to be glorified by it not him; he would want it that way. Leave it to corporate America to corrupt even that. I bet you give gifts out to kids not because Jesus said to but because Coke said to, now that is sad. If I am wrong please let me know because it is a guess, I don’t know your heart like God does.

    Remember you are not above nor better then a poor homeless child in South Africa or India; you are no better then any other human on this earth, even me. Humble yourself before God before it is too late. I agree Matthew 10:34-36 set a great deal of people on either side of the fence (my family included). God will not allow us to sit on fences and neither will I, either you are for God or against him, period.

    I feel your perfect love that is for sure, umm. Look Jesus said if you hate someone you commit murder of the heart so please stop your hate filled rhetoric. I don’t want harm to happen to you, not by me but by God.

    ”people who believe in and base their lives on fairy tales (I assume you mean Christianity) are the filthiest hypocrites of all.”

    You are making broad sweeping claims without backing anything up with evidence and you want me to present even more then I have given already, *sniff, *sniff I smell a little hypocrisy going on. Shameful but expected.

    ” I can honestly say that I have never met an atheist who claims to know everything. Nor have I ever met an atheist whose atheism rests on the idea that everything is known.” Umm Tracie I would like you to meet Ottovstar.

    ” We haven’t discovered it yet. In other words, there is no way we can talk intelligently about something for which we have no information. ”

    Thank you, this was my point! So it is POSSIBLE you do not KNOW FOR SURE so you are all agnostic by definition not atheists. If you want to base “your” salvation on fairies then go ahead but I don’t recommend it, is that what your logic is telling you?

    ” a practically true statement verses a logically true statement.” Like the word atheist?

    ” So, if you ask if my brakes are working on my car, and I say “yes,” have I lied? Or is my “yes” a valid response? ”

    You need to discuss these things with Ottostar and Martin and Matt and others then because they just claim I am lying and such. Good point though.

    Help me I am getting confused then so which is it, if there IS manifestation, Logic or Practical?

    ” TOTAL SPECULATION BASED ON ZERO INFORMATION.”

    Like atheism, I understand.

    Tracie, I just had an epiphany from our Lord (this is another example of manifestation, but I digress). I believe the name calling and such from these choice atheists are due to confusion on their parts. I will now attempt to refute your claim of no manifestation.

    I claim that God has manifested himself to me and you claim that the statement I made is false, here is my proof. Without knowing what your view of the term is, we must define the word for my case. The following is the list of definitions of manifestation:

    Definitions of manifestation

    1.How spirit energy presents itself to humans or life.

    2.From a metaphysical point of view, the world is but the manifestation of the Principle which contains, in virtual states, both ontological possibilities (the Being and the archetypes) and super-ontological possibilities (Non-Being). The world exists only insofar as it participates in the Principle.

    3.The nature of a prophet of the Manifestation of God is thus described in Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh (pp. 66-67): "Since there can be no tie or direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. . . . ...

    4.A manifestation is the act of paranormal energy, such as a spirit, appearing to those present or making its presence known. Manifestations can be in the form of ghost lights, thumping on walls, moving objects, smells, or sounds. Table tipping is a way for a spirit to manifest itself.

    5.the act or product of bringing about change through the direction of consciousness.

    6.The appearance or taking of form of an entity. This can also mean the outbreak of paranormal activity.

    7.is one of the terms used to refer to God's Messenger. A Manifestation of God, such as Moses, Christ, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh, to name a few, brings God's message to mankind at various stages in human history.

    For this discussion Tracie I present the definitions labeled #1, #5, and #7. These are what I believe to be a manifestation. In the passage John 14:21 Jesus said he will manifest himself to us. In many examples I have presented as proof a manifestation. You and the others, I am afraid have had in your mind the idea that a manifestation is the definitions of #4 and #6 like a poltergeist of sorts, correct? In hopes to calm our friend Otto and the rest that I have not misrepresented my claim that God did manifest himself to me as stated in the bible. I still stand on my position that he does manifest himself. These definitions that I present are measurable and recordable in a repetitive manner, as you require (Objectively verifiable, observable manifestation), justifying the validity of said claim. I can expound in rebuttal if necessary but first your rebuttal?

    ”Where do you get your information? A Coke-a-Cola character?“

    I can not say for sure as I have known it for so many years. In a search for it though I came up with this link Santa and Coca-Cola

    ”>Tonight remember to ask yourself Tracie and others “how important is it that I truly know the truth?”

    It is so important that I refuse to accept the speculation you offer as fact.“


    I still want to hug you, maybe it is your brain that I want to hug, you are a sharp cookie I will give you that. I think things through logically and I would never have come up with these claims based on a belief in lies. I am here to help all of you find the truth even though some of you believe I am false in some way, I still actually do care about you all. I can sit and take this punishment by all of you because I know the truth and I am struggling to make all of you understand “that truth”. Just because I sometimes don’t enunciate grammatically correct, to your liking, doesn’t mean it isn’t true it just means I have to keep trying until I am understood properly.

    So it pleases me that since you are a reasonable woman that you actually will take my claims and find use of them. If you are serious about this subject being “so important” that now my facts will not be received as speculations and you will consider that God does exist and does manifest himself, yes to even you if you come to his terms and not the other way around. I am cheering for you and your salvation, as well as all of you, I hope your logical mind comes to the same conclusion that I have. God DOES exist.

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  23. tracie harris3/30/2007 5:10 PM

    >>” We haven’t discovered it yet. In other words, there is no way we can talk intelligently about something for which we have no information. ”

    >Thank you, this was my point! So it is POSSIBLE you do not KNOW FOR SURE so you are all agnostic by definition not atheists.

    Agnostics and atheists are two different things. It’s like saying that if I’m a mother I can’t also be a professional teacher. One deals with claims of knowledge (agnostic) and one deals with claims of belief (atheist). One is a family function (mother), one is a professional function (teacher). They’re not comparable or conflicting. They are sometimes combined, but they are apples and oranges.

    The agnostic is saying we can’t know anything about god. You’re saying we can know lots of things about god.

    The atheist says: since there is no information regarding the existence of gods, I am presented with no reason to suggest gods exist or believe someone else’s claim gods exist. Even if gods do, in fact, exist—I would have no way to know it—so I wouldn’t even know what it was I was believing in—unless I just made up some criteria and called it god (until a god physically manifests, and I can then know if my made-up ideas were right or not).

    >” So, if you ask if my brakes are working on my car, and I say “yes,” have I lied? Or is my “yes” a valid response? ”

    You need to discuss these things with Ottostar and Martin and Matt and others then because they just claim I am lying and such. Good point though.

    I have very infrequently accused you of being intellectually dishonest. I only call a person on this when they quickly and openly contradict themselves in the most blatant fashion (not retract, but back peddle). I don’t hurl that accusation lightly, and I withheld it for a very long time in my dialogue with you, because I felt that ignorance and honest inability to grasp a logical concept is not the same as open dishonesty. And I don’t mean that as a backhanded jab—it was just the way I was looking at it.

    Where I call a person intellectually dishonest, they have blatantly either contradicted themselves in such a fashion that it could in no way be an error (back-peddled badly) or they are presenting a hypocritical argument. For example, saying people should believe your claim of god without verification—but then saying people shouldn’t believe in claims of other items without verification—such as fairies, Santa, Allah, Shiva, ghosts, and so on.

    >Help me I am getting confused then so which is it, if there IS manifestation, Logic or Practical?

    If there is an objectively verified, observable manifestation of X, then X can be said to exist from both a practical and a logic standpoint. Is that what you’re asking?

    >” TOTAL SPECULATION BASED ON ZERO INFORMATION.”

    Like atheism, I understand.

    Do you also understand that you are then unable to make claims about what gods do or say or think? I’m not doing that. You are. I’m saying that since they appear not to exist, we can’t make claims about them. We can’t even logically believe in them. You’re saying we can believe in them and then we can even tell one another all about them—without ever even examining one.

    If god manifests tomorrow, and it’s Shiva, then all your assumptions are wrong. If it’s just energy without consciousness, then all your assumptions are wrong. Etc. You haven’t examined god. You can’t know that any or all gods will not one day be shown to be existent. Logically speaking, you are right—neither can I. Practically speaking, if we can say Santa doesn’t exist, then we can say god doesn’t exist.

    >Tracie, I just had an epiphany from our Lord (this is another example of manifestation, but I digress).

    Please feel free to digress. I don’t agree that ideas are objectively verified as coming from god, though.

    >I believe the name calling and such from these choice atheists are due to confusion on their parts. I will now attempt to refute your claim of no manifestation.

    Thank you. I actually appreciate this attempt.

    >I claim that God has manifested himself to me and you claim that the statement I made is false, here is my proof. Without knowing what your view of the term is, we must define the word for my case. The following is the list of definitions of manifestation:

    >Definitions of manifestation

    >1.How spirit energy presents itself to humans or life.

    This one is unhelpful because I requested objectively verifiable and observable manifestation. And “spirit energy” has not been verified. Saying “god” (undefined term—since we can’t observe “god”) manifests as “spirit energy” (undefined term—since we can’t observe “spirit energy”), isn’t really providing any information at all. It’s like saying “X manifests as Y.”

    >5.the act or product of bringing about change through the direction of consciousness.

    We both agreed on this one: Ideas exist. But you said god is not an idea nor does he exist as an idea—but in the external reality.

    >7.is one of the terms used to refer to God's Messenger. A Manifestation of God, such as Moses, Christ, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh, to name a few, brings God's message to mankind at various stages in human history.

    So god manifests as human beings? That would agree with Hindu conceptions and is really less a Xian idea—but I’m open to hearing more.

    >For this discussion Tracie I present the definitions labeled #1, #5, and #7. These are what I believe to be a manifestation. In the passage John 14:21 Jesus said he will manifest himself to us. In many examples I have presented as proof a manifestation. You and the others, I am afraid have had in your mind the idea that a manifestation is the definitions of #4 and #6 like a poltergeist of sorts, correct?

    Not completely; although a consistent ghost-style manifestation would be good if it could be verified in some way—not just as “something” manifesting, but as god or a ghost manifesting. The “ghost lights,” for example, may really be lights that we can record—but just because John Doe says ghosts are making them, we’d need to investigate that claim; there are many other things that create light.

    But I actually used an example of a coconut earlier. If you said your god was a coconut, I’d admit the coconut exists, but I wouldn’t accept supernatural claims about it—or call it “god” myself.

    The “manifestation” you claim, I think we all do understand what you’re saying. But the problem is that it’s very personal and subjective, and not at all objective. It doesn’t “prove” anything. Now, as far as you personally believing you feel god in you—that’s your business; but you can’t use something like that to try and convince others that god exists. Here’s an example of why not (true story):

    I saw a program the other night on alien abduction. A man claimed he was in a car with a friend driving. He had dozed off in the passenger seat. His friend woke him up and said, “What is that?!”

    They both saw a very bright light that kept getting brighter. They exited the car calmly and stood in the road, where the light grew and became brighter. Then something fell from the light and hit the ground nearby.
    Eventually the light vanished, but the men were able to find the object it left behind, and it was very hot and they couldn’t touch it. When it cooled sufficiently, they were able to retrieve it and bring it with them.

    They actually were able to convince some labs to test it, and tests verified that the material was extra terrestrial in origin. They had their paperwork from the labs—the whole deal. Interestingly, another, similar object was found and reported several decades earlier, in a similar incident. They showed the paperwork for the older object, and it appeared to be quite similar, I agreed.

    The man telling the story is convinced he saw a spaceship.

    I think he likely witnessed some sort of meteor.

    Nobody really knows—not even him—if what he saw was a space craft. But the evidence he provided doesn’t justify belief in aliens to me. Things come from outside our planet into our atmosphere all the time. And they burn up during entry—which more than explains the bright light and the hot object. So, verification of “extra terrestrial” origin doesn’t really mean anything, because such things do come to our planet from “out there” from time to time, without alien spaceships delivering them.

    In this case, you believe Jesus is god and that you feel him manifest in you. You experience emotions and feel things you think are god interacting with you. And you read the Bible, and on some level it speaks to you, and you believe it is from god. [Just as an aside, I was Church of Christ, and they would say your claims are not Biblical—because they don’t accept the doctrine of personal revelation. So, even many fundamentalist Xians would argue that your experience cannot be from god.]

    I think the main problem you’re running into here is that you want others to adopt your interpretations of these things, things that, to many people, are very natural things that do not require supernatural explanation.

    If you have your personal beliefs, I don’t care (not in a mean way—but your personal beliefs are none of my business); but when you come to a forum and tell people to interpret data the same way you do—and your interpretation is really all you’ve got to convince us—you’re going to catch some flack. The very correct answer from the forum is: “Why should I accept your interpretation?” And the reality is that there is no reason for anyone else to adopt your thinking. And although you find these “evidences” convincing, not everyone is going to agree that they are. I’m certainly not attempting to “take away” your belief. I’m not saying your god doesn’t manifest enough for you to believe in god. I’m saying your god doesn’t manifest enough for _me_ to believe in your god. For me, I would require something I could objectively verify. You don’t require that. (More on that later.) No problem. But never the twain shall meet.

    >In hopes to calm our friend Otto and the rest that I have not misrepresented my claim that God did manifest himself to me as stated in the bible. I still stand on my position that he does manifest himself. These definitions that I present are measurable and recordable in a repetitive manner, as you require (Objectively verifiable, observable manifestation), justifying the validity of said claim. I can expound in rebuttal if necessary but first your rebuttal?

    They are not objectively verifiable. They are very, very subjective. When I have strong feelings, I have strong feelings. When you have strong feelings, you are experiencing Jesus. When Nabeel has strong feelings, he is experiencing Allah. How is this objective? None of us is interpreting this the same way— what could be more subjective?

    Objective verification means that it can be verified without filtering though personal interpretation. A germ under a microscope is a germ no matter who looks at it (so long as we all have our perceptual faculties working in proper order). And, further, if we cannot rule out other causes, we still have a problem. Otherwise, my Gravity Fairies are causing gravity. “Feelings” may be measurable, but they certainly are not objective; and they have many known natural causes.

    But just to repeat what I’ve said several times previously: I’m not asking for manifestations of things you think god does or says (like making you feel X); because unless we can show there is a god, you’re interpretation of these “feelings” as coming from god is not correct. And we can’t verify god, so “feelings that come from god” are a claim of god’s doings, without knowledge of god’s existence. I’m asking for manifestation of god’s existence—directly. I did make it very clear several times that I required “as much” manifestation as “a germ.” You knew early on that was my requirement.

    If internal feelings are what you have to offer, that may be good enough for you—but it’s not convincing for many others. And you must, consciously, be aware of that. If you accept this as evidence of your god, then you must also accept it as evidence of Allah and Shiva and myriad other gods that people have felt strongly existed and interacted with them on a personal level. Why is your god’s manifestation any more or less valid in this case than a Moslem’s “experience” with Allah?

    ”>Tonight remember to ask yourself Tracie and others “how important is it that I truly know the truth?”

    It is so important that I refuse to accept the speculation you offer as fact.“

    >I still want to hug you, maybe it is your brain that I want to hug, you are a sharp cookie I will give you that. I think things through logically and I would never have come up with these claims based on a belief in lies. I am here to help all of you find the truth even though some of you believe I am false in some way, I still actually do care about you all. I can sit and take this punishment by all of you because I know the truth and I am struggling to make all of you understand “that truth”. Just because I sometimes don’t enunciate grammatically correct, to your liking, doesn’t mean it isn’t true it just means I have to keep trying until I am understood properly.

    It wouldn’t hurt you to also try to understand the people you’re dialoguing with. Your feelings are your feelings. And I try to respect people’s feelings. I don’t doubt your sincerity. But you’re not very skeptical in your thinking. This is no crime. Many people operate on a very emotional level—some very successful people do this.

    >So it pleases me that since you are a reasonable woman that you actually will take my claims and find use of them. If you are serious about this subject being “so important” that now my facts will not be received as speculations and you will consider that God does exist and does manifest himself, yes to even you if you come to his terms and not the other way around. I am cheering for you and your salvation, as well as all of you, I hope your logical mind comes to the same conclusion that I have. God DOES exist.

    I understand. But the problem now is that you are working under a different definition of manifestation. You’re describing manifestations of things you think god causes—feelings; that is based on a premise that remains unproven. To be able to claim god causes feelings in people, we have to verify first there is a god. Otherwise the claim is founded on thin air.

    What constitutes manifestation of god to you, could be used to prove the existence of every god ever claimed to exists—so long as that god was sincerely “felt” by someone.But emotions don’t give us information about the external world. They are only internal dialogues within ourselves:

    X happens, and we feel Y. The feeling of Y doesn’t tell us anything about X—it only tells us about our personal interpretation of X. In other words, if John walks into a room, and I immediately dislike John, this tells me nothing about John. Emotions tell me only about _myself_ and what _I’m_ thinking and how _I’m_ reacting. They don’t give me any information about the external, objective reality.

    Anyway, I’d say that my strongest thought about your offerings boils down to:

    1. Totally subjective.
    2. Supports the existence of Allah as much as Jehovah.

    ReplyDelete
  24. tracie harris3/30/2007 5:12 PM

    Above, I didn't indent properly. It should have been like this:

    >>” So, if you ask if my brakes are working on my car, and I say “yes,” have I lied? Or is my “yes” a valid response? ”

    >You need to discuss these things with Ottostar and Martin and Matt and others then because they just claim I am lying and such. Good point though.

    Sorry if that confused anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  25. tracie harris3/30/2007 5:14 PM

    I did it again--very sorry. Should have been:

    >>” TOTAL SPECULATION BASED ON ZERO INFORMATION.”

    >Like atheism, I understand.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am sure you studied about the Church of Christ and they are so wrong in the teachings. I started at Church of Christ also but I ran fast away from that church.

    “>5.the act or product of bringing about change through the direction of consciousness.

    We both agreed on this one: Ideas exist. But you said god is not an idea nor does he exist as an idea—but in the external reality.”


    I don’t think this means an idea, I believe this to mean a radical change of heart where a murderer no longer wishes to murder or a drug addict no longer wants any drugs a radical change of heart and/or consciousness. An example of radical change is Jeffrey Dahmer where he used to eat his victims and when he became a Christian his desire to do that did not exist anymore. This can be proven by many means. Look at the character of someone before Christianity and then after. It is measurable and satisfies your conditions. If I claimed God is not an idea (please point out in what context I said this) I am sure I meant not just a figment of imagination or a fleeting thought.

    Radical change in direction of consciousness is a manifestation of God. This is my point. IT is how a heroin addict suddenly does not want to slam anymore and by him attributing it to the Lord is verification of where the radical change came from.

    Here is an example and I apologize to Patrick to use this but it was here at this blog site:

    ”Patrick said...

    About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].

    Peace Be With You
    Patrick

    3/29/2007 4:30 AM “



    Do you understand now Tracie this is an example of true manifestation. To me it is plain as day.

    BTW my answer was this:

    Dan Marvin said...
    Way to go Patrick!!

    Another fantastic testimony of God existing and proof he is here for us. There are literally millions of stories like Patrick’s and even mine. You can act like an ostrich all you like but you will have to account for your actions to the authority of the entire universe. You are held accountable to your actions whether you have a Mom or Dad or any friends or not. There is the Father in heaven that you are waging a war against. You see Martin the reason you haven’t found God is for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.

    The Bible says seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open for you. God bless you Patrick and keep in the word daily because it is like your loved one writing you love letters and you didn’t bother to read any of them. God wrote us 66 love letters called the Holy Bible and he wants us to read it. Thanks for sharing and I pray we all can be as strong as you are today. I am grateful to God that he chose you Patrick to be written in the book of life. We should pray for our lost friends here at this blog.

    For Him,
    Dan

    3/29/2007 5:15 PM

    ”They are not objectively verifiable. They are very, very subjective.“

    These are NOT just subjective or strong feelings these are radial changes in someone psyche. This is a noticeable, measurable difference in ones structure. BTW PSYCHE is Greek for soul. You can measure a person’s way of thinking before and after the “conversion” hence the term conversion (transformation). This is proof for manifestation of god’s existence—directly. You convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade (a radical difference) and when you convert to Christianity, there is a radical difference in your soul. You must understand this logic or should I just write you off as denial of argument.(denial of God and denial of proof?) Don’t be difficult here, it appears you are trying to “write off” what I am saying here as just another feeling when it is quite the opposite. It is measurable and verifiable and noticeable difference in someone’s psyche.

    A great book for you to understand my position would be The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil

    It is measurable my dear friend and cannot be denied.

    ”What constitutes manifestation of god to you, could be used to prove the existence of every god ever claimed to exists—so long as that god was sincerely “felt” by someone. “

    This is the opposite of what I am stating. It is a radical noticeable transformation that can’t be written off as just a feeling because everything about that person is different. The person goes from being an apple to transforming into an orange. Not to mention the prophecies in the bible and all the other things I pointed out. (That are true I might add).

    To me it is undeniable but I guess I should look at my audience here, denial of God is easy for all of you, denial of truth must also be easy, and denial of one’s salvation is easy too. Denying someone else’s right to salvation by convincing them there is no God is an abomination and I can’t sit idly by and let that happen.

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  27. "BTW my answer was this:"

    I meant "my relpy was this:"

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan said: Without knowing what your view of the term is, we must define the word for my case. The following is the list of definitions of manifestation:

    [snip 1-6]

    7.is one of the terms used to refer to God's Messenger. A Manifestation of God, such as Moses, Christ, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh, to name a few, brings God's message to mankind at various stages in human history.

    For this discussion Tracie I present the definitions labeled #1, #5, and #7. These are what I believe to be a manifestation.


    So Dan is saying that he accepts #7 as an accurate description of what he believes is a manifestation, specifically a manifestation of God.

    Let me continue on with Dan's #7 definition, which he has just admitted in a public forum is an accurate description of what he believes to be a manifestation of God:

    "According to Bahá'í belief, Manifestations of God, including Moses, Abraham, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, and Buddha, have appeared at intervals throughout history to found the world's great religious systems. They have been sent by a loving Creator to enable us to know and to worship Him and to bring human civilization to ever higher levels of achievement.

    The station of these Manifestations is unique in creation. Their essential nature is twofold: they are at once human and divine. But they are not identical with God , the Creator, Who is Unknowable.
    "

    Dan, by your own admission, which you have publicly stated is your own belief, Jesus is the same type of manifestation as at least Moses, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh (and by inference, Krishna and Buddha). All of these Manifestations of God were divine, but were by definition not identical with God, and therefore were not God.

    Dan, you've just declared to us all that you are a Bahá'í, and you've just invalidated not only your Christian beliefs, but every single argument you've put forth on all your previous entries on this blog.

    Dan also said: These are NOT just subjective or strong feelings these are radial changes in someone psyche. This is a noticeable, measurable difference in ones structure. and You can measure a person’s way of thinking before and after the “conversion” hence the term conversion (transformation). This is proof for manifestation of god’s existence—directly. .... and when you convert to Christianity, there is a radical difference in your soul. and
    It is a radical noticeable transformation that can’t be written off as just a feeling because everything about that person is different. The person goes from being an apple to transforming into an orange.

    The trouble is, Dan, I have read (and in some cases heard in person) these exact same claims and testimonies from Muslims, Buddhists, Neopagans, and Wiccans, among others. Their lives have been just as changed, their apples have been just as thoroughly orangified, so why are their testimonies false and yours, Dan, is true?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Clarification: Dan's #7 definition of manifestation:

    7.is one of the terms used to refer to God's Messenger. A Manifestation of God, such as Moses, Christ, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh, to name a few, brings God's message to mankind at various stages in human history.

    is the definition of a Manifestation of God that is believed by Bahá'í-ism. When I said "let me continue on with Dan's #7 definition," that was not the best way to phrase that sentence. What I meant was, let us take Dan's #7 definition, which is the definition the Bahá'í use to define a Manifestation of God, and go to an actual Bahá'í site, and use what they say to elaborate upon that definition that Dan provided.

    But that still does not negate the fact that what Dan has stated he believes is an accurate definition of a manifestation of God is the same definition the Bahá'í use to define their own belief. And that belief is definitely not the belief of conservative, fundamentalistic, and/or evangelical Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "These are NOT just subjective or strong feelings these are radial changes in someone psyche. This is a noticeable, measurable difference in ones structure. BTW PSYCHE is Greek for soul. You can measure a person’s way of thinking before and after the “conversion” hence the term conversion (transformation). This is proof for manifestation of god’s existence—directly."

    Dan, what you've described here is an excellent illustration of what happened to Malcolm X. A guy who was doomed to a life of alcohol, drugs, crime and prison. The minute he became a member of the Nation of Islam, he kicked all that nonsense and never went back to it. Anyone who claims Malcolm X didn't have a radically transformed psyche because of his embracing of certain ideas and a worldview about God simply isn't paying attention. Even later, when he figures out that Elijah Muhammad's cult was corrupt, this knowledge was partly because of a pilgrimage to Mecca where he embraced a more universal version of Islam.

    Malcolm X never went back to Christianity - the religion of his birth - and showed no evidence he would ever do so. Did Malcolm X get a radically different message from God than YOU did, Dan? Apparently. Is this "evidence" for God, too? Confusing fellow, this God of yours.

    As usual, Dan's myopic view of life limits his awareness of the obvious problems and implications of what he's saying. Basically, since Dan thinks "jesus" made him a better person, anyone who is radically transformed into a better person by another religion can simply be ignored. Dan's new, non-destructive life is evidence for God, but someone else's positive, transformed new life outside of Christianity either comes from Satan or has some other mundane explanation.

    How very convenient. Logically flawed to boot..

    ReplyDelete
  31. You can act like an ostrich all you like but you will have to account for your actions to the authority of the entire universe. You are held accountable to your actions whether you have a Mom or Dad or any friends or not. There is the Father in heaven that you are waging a war against. You see Martin the reason you haven’t found God is for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.

    More inappropriate, baseless analogies. I know my parents exist. I know policemen exist. I do not know a God exists, and for all your babble about apples becoming oranges you have not formed a coherent argument in favor of one's existence. Then you've admitted your God is "unknowable," which essentially neuters any argument you've ever made or care to attempt in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  32. tracie harris3/31/2007 9:36 AM

    >I am sure you studied about the Church of Christ and they are so wrong in the teachings. I started at Church of Christ also but I ran fast away from that church.

    But their only authority is the Bible. And you disagree, because you believe in personal revelation—just like Andrea Yates and my Moslem correspondent, Nabeel.

    The CC makes a really good argument, however, that if god reveals himself to individuals personally, the Bible is negated as an ultimate authority—and everyone’s personal interpretations become as valid as the Bible—since their personal interpretation can have come to them from god.

    “>>>5.the act or product of bringing about change through the direction of consciousness.

    >>We both agreed on this one: Ideas exist. But you said god is not an idea nor does he exist as an idea—but in the external reality.”

    >I don’t think this means an idea, I believe this to mean a radical change of heart where a murderer no longer wishes to murder or a drug addict no longer wants any drugs a radical change of heart and/or consciousness. An example of radical change is Jeffrey Dahmer where he used to eat his victims and when he became a Christian his desire to do that did not exist anymore. This can be proven by many means. Look at the character of someone before Christianity and then after. It is measurable and satisfies your conditions. If I claimed God is not an idea (please point out in what context I said this) I am sure I meant not just a figment of imagination or a fleeting thought.

    At first, to be honest, I thought it meant telekinetic ability. But I wanted to make sure. You pulled this off the Internet (no crime), and so I Googled it to make sure I understood your meaning correctly. What I found defined this phrase as merely a way to focus on goals in order to achieve them. The quote seems to come from this article (found all over the Internet—with no citation as having borrowed the phrase) about how to get what you want in life—and has no bearing on god or what god does to people:

    http://www.klienwachter.com/adarticles/article.php?id=2177&act=print

    http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/1st-Step-to-Manifesting-Life/25638

    http://www.netmlmarticles.com/Article/How-to-Attract-Abundance/7540

    And there are many, many more links to this same article.

    It’s merely a positive self-improvement technique and not related to spirituality in any way. In fact, far from claiming god has anything to do with this concept, the author states: “You can create our own reality. You can attract riches, opportunities and happiness, etc., in our life when you learn to focus or attract yourself on them.”

    So, I’m getting my interpretation from the author(?). I assume this is a valid source? The meaning he applies is totally something people do to themselves, and not anything supernatural.

    Meanwhile, the conversation about ideas happened here:

    https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33241741&postID=1285008105498692196

    I don’t think we disagreed that god is an idea. All objects that are manifest are also ideas—or else we couldn’t discuss them. We disagreed that god exists only as an idea. You seemed to be saying that god wasn’t just in people’s minds (like ideas exist—in people’s minds). I should have been more clear.

    >Radical change in direction of consciousness is a manifestation of God. This is my point. IT is how a heroin addict suddenly does not want to slam anymore and by him attributing it to the Lord is verification of where the radical change came from.

    According to the author of the article where I found the quote, it’s a change he believes people can bring about all on their own without any help from god. Again—I thought it meant telekinetic powers (so I’m sort of disappointed).

    >Here is an example and I apologize to Patrick to use this but it was here at this blog site:

    >”Patrick said...

    >About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. …He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].

    >Do you understand now Tracie this is an example of true manifestation. To me it is plain as day.

    Yes. In fact, in my last post, I wrote:

    “You experience emotions and feel things you think are god interacting with you.”

    I don’t doubt others do as well. Some people think god helps their kids win football games. Hitler thought god backed him for the Holocaust. There are all sorts of things people attribute to god. But just saying, “This is because of god,” doesn’t make it so.

    What you offer is a true manifestation of someone changing their mindset and behavior. But awhile back I posted that for many years, people believed that illness was a true manifestation of humors. Was it? If not, why did they believe a lie? Because: If you think X is responsible for Y—holding up Y as proof of X doesn’t work—and they didn’t realize that. If you think humors are responsible for illness, holding up illness as proof of humors doesn’t work. If you think god is responsible for change of mind/behavior, then holding up change of mind as proof of god, doesn’t work. To show humors cause illness, it is first necessary to show humors manifest independently. I made this same argument long ago—and have continued to make it, until now.

    In fact, I wondered last night, when your god was giving you that epiphany in your last post—why didn’t he also provide you some memory so that you’d avoid making a repeat argument that I’d already voiced clear objections to in nearly all my previous responses?

    If you can’t show your god exists, then I cannot accept your further claims about your god—in the same fashion I would not accept humors just because I see sick people. If there is no direct manifestation of your god that we can objectively, independently verify, please just say so, and I can save myself some time with further dialogue here, because that’s what it takes for me to accept your god exists anywhere outside of your mind.

    >BTW my answer was this:

    >Dan Marvin said...
    >Way to go Patrick!!

    >Another fantastic testimony of God existing and proof he is here for us.

    Quote from previous post: “…although you find these ‘evidences’ convincing, not everyone is going to agree that they are.”

    >There are literally millions of stories like Patrick’s and even mine.

    And there are millions of stories like the one the author of your quote offers—that people can do this themselves. If they attribute it to god, that’s their business—but it’s not supported.

    >You can act like an ostrich all you like but you will have to account for your actions to the authority of the entire universe. You are held accountable to your actions whether you have a Mom or Dad or any friends or not. There is the Father in heaven that you are waging a war against. You see Martin the reason you haven’t found God is for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.

    Quote from previous post: I’m not saying your god doesn’t manifest enough for you to believe in god. I’m saying your god doesn’t manifest enough for _me_ to believe in your god. For me, I would require something I could objectively verify. You don’t require that.

    >The Bible says seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open for you.

    And that is a true statement. I sought, I found objectively verifiable reality. You seek, you find Jesus. Nabeel seeks, he find Allah. Some people seek and find aliens. Some people seek and find ghosts. Some people seek and find that crystals cured their fibromyalgia…and so on. If a person seeks, they find. If they’re looking for something specific, and they want it to be real badly enough, nine times out of ten, that’s what they’ll find. People find what they wish to find most often. The key, I believe, is to drop ego and look without expectation—then you raise your odds of finding what is actually there, and not merely what you expected or wanted to find. But that’s just me and my philosophy.

    >>”They are not objectively verifiable. They are very, very subjective.“

    >These are NOT just subjective or strong feelings these are radial changes in someone psyche.

    Quote from my prior post (which you seem to have missed): “’Feelings’ may be measurable, but they certainly are not objective; and they have many known natural causes.”

    You are right that some changes in mindset and behavior can be measurable objectively—but plug in any measurable thing you like there—claiming a supernatural cause is where the subjectivity and interpretation is coming in.

    > This is proof for manifestation of god’s existence—directly.

    No, it most certainly is not. It is proof that people can change. You have not proven any cause that requires supernatural intervention.

    You’ve proven illness—you’ve not proven humors. If you can’t prove humors, let me know now, so I don’t waste any more time. If your interpretations of events as “being the result of god,” are all I’m going to get, I’d like to know now, because this is a time consuming correspondence. And I’ve made it clear what I’m looking for. Gravity does not prove Gravity Fairies.

    > You must understand this logic or should I just write you off as denial of argument.(denial of God and denial of proof?) Don’t be difficult here, it appears you are trying to “write off” what I am saying here as just another feeling when it is quite the opposite. It is measurable and verifiable and noticeable difference in someone’s psyche.

    You have not shown so much as a germ of god’s existence. If you tell me that you’ve put forward the best “evidence” you’ve got on this forum—I’ll happily accept your label of “denial.” Just let me know if that’s where we’re at, because I can’t see how “people can turn their lives around” = god. And neither can the author whom you quoted as the basis for this whole strand. He agrees that people can and do accomplish this independently without any supernatural intervention. And his entire article is nothing but an explanation of how people do this independently.

    >A great book for you to understand my position would be The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil

    Is it about the Inquisition?

    >It is measurable my dear friend and cannot be denied.

    Change of mind and behavior is measurable—but it is not even close to being proof of god.

    >>”What constitutes manifestation of god to you, could be used to prove the existence of every god ever claimed to exists—so long as that god was sincerely “felt” by someone. “

    >This is the opposite of what I am stating. It is a radical noticeable transformation that can’t be written off as just a feeling because everything about that person is different. The person goes from being an apple to transforming into an orange.

    No, no, no: To turn an apple to an orange requires a genetic level change. You can’t be claiming anything this radical. If this statement were true, converted Xians would be on the cover of Scientific America. Your bias is clear from this grossly exaggerated claim.

    >Not to mention the prophecies in the bible and all the other things I pointed out. (That are true I might add).

    Moslems will say Allah can change your life, and that their Quran is perfect and contains the same types of “undeniable” messages that can only be from god. They use the exact same arguments to support their book and their god, that you are using here. I’ve debated them—and there is no difference. The “support” you’re using to prove the existence of god in this post, is the exact same support a Moslem will use to prove the existence of Allah. There is no difference. If you don’t believe me, go to a Islam forum and tell them Allah can’t make these types of changes in people’s lives—you will be flooded with posts of adamant disagreement.

    >To me it is undeniable but I guess I should look at my audience here, denial of God is easy for all of you, denial of truth must also be easy, and denial of one’s salvation is easy too. Denying someone else’s right to salvation by convincing them there is no God is an abomination and I can’t sit idly by and let that happen.

    Quote from previous post: “…although you find these ‘evidences’ convincing, not everyone is going to agree that they are.”

    ReplyDelete
  33. A great book for you to understand my position would be The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.

    Dan, you have NO IDEA what this book is about. I mean: it was only released four days ago. I imagine you just saw something about it on TV (as I did on the Daily Show) saw the word "Lucifer" and thought "Jesus Book!".

    Quote from the review on Amazon: "Zimbardo details how situational forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make monsters out of decent men and women. He replaces the long-held notion of the “bad apple” with that of the “bad barrel”–the idea that the social setting and the system contaminate the individual, rather than the other way around."

    This last sentence isn't really honest. That is not a new idea.

    Dan: I gave my stance now you give your rebuttal, where is your proof of NO GOD I am waiting.

    Again: To me it is undeniable but I guess I should look at my audience here, denial of God is easy for all of you, denial of truth must also be easy, and denial of one’s salvation is easy too. Denying someone else’s right to salvation by convincing them there is no God is an abomination and I can’t sit idly by and let that happen.

    Same shit, different day...

    We have gone over all of this again and again and again. And Dan has continually shown that he is not intellectually honest enough to have this type of discussion.

    I just finished rereading an old favorite and this particular sentence struck me as appropriate:

    He thought: It's not an act - one can't put on an act like that - unless it's an act inside, for oneself, and then there is no limit, no way out, no reality...
    -Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, Part 4 Chapter 10.

    I am with Matt here. This has become a completely pointless endeavor. Dan has not learned a single thing (other than how to spell a couple words). He doesn’t WANT to learn anything. That is the fundamental difference between him and us that has limited our interactions. We have won every argument, and I am confident in ending my part in it here. We are not going to be the catalyst that changes Dan’s life, and honestly… Who cares?

    ReplyDelete
  34. tracie harris3/31/2007 10:28 AM

    I should also put in a plug for Buddhism's power to change lives. In addition to the myriad motivational speakers who will testify that they've seen complete life make-overs done by people themselves, Buddhism makes the same testimonial. Buddhism offers a program that can change lives in the same way--all without god or gods.

    http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=2860

    Here, 56 people voted in a small, informal poll to say "Buddhism changed my life completely, I'm a different person."

    23 people said it had "impact" and only 3 seemed to not see much difference.

    I'm not going to compete with numbers, I'm aware that currently there are far more Xians than Buddhists; but the point here is that you can change your life completely using perfectly natural means--it doesn't require a miracle. So, when people claim it's a miracle they changed--they need to somehow show it wasn't a naturally occurring change--since we know this happens naturally to people as well.

    I have used Buddhism to adjust aspects of my own personality, and I have found it works incredibly effectively for me. I can say that, although I'm not a Buddhist, I have certainly changed my own life by reading and understanding more about the human mindset from the Buddhist perspective. It's much easier to fix a car if you actually understand how it operates and what is really broken; it certainly works much better than praying to Jesus that your car will work tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  35. tracie harris3/31/2007 10:36 AM

    And what about Stephen's point earlier that "change" is less than miraculous if that "change" includes backsliding? If Xians "aren't perfect, just forgiven" (to quote a bumper sticker), then how is that "life changing"? If I say Jesus transformed my life. I no longer do the things I did before..." Then I get caught lying, and I say, "Well, just because I'm saved doesn't mean I still won't sin--but now I'm forgiven..."

    I mean--other than "god forgives you" when you continue to do all the same sorts of things you did previously--what exactly really changed there? If you changed, miraculously, why would you still be doing the same sorts of things? You say not just your mindset, but your behavior really, truly changes. If that's so, do you still need forgiveness? If you changed, but you still screw up--that's not really much of a testimony for god's power to "make an apple out of an orange."

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This is exactly what I was talking about being in context Alyx said this:

    ”Dan, by your own admission, which you have publicly stated is your own belief, Jesus is the same type of manifestation as at least Moses, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh (and by inference, Krishna and Buddha).”

    If I was to say “Hitler said that Jews should die” This character would say hay everyone Dan just admitted on a public forum that all Jews should die. This is pathetic and amateurish.

    This is the definition that I agree with 7.is one of the terms used to refer to God's Messenger. (This is the definition and you used the examples AS the definition.) Are you kidding? He manifests himself either to or through Moses or as Christ. As in God came down as a man named Jesus to save the entire human race. Just because they used examples doesn’t mean all of them and if the definition actually meant all of the examples given and I misread it or something then I was mistaken and retract it, that’s all.

    lizardking said... Dan, what you've described here is an excellent illustration of what happened to Malcolm X.

    There are radical flaws in your logic and arguments. Again you are taking what I am saying OUT OF CONTEXT and reading what you want to back up your conclusion. You are ignoring facts about what I said as a whole and picking things out. Atheists do this with the bible and many other things. They are selective. They claim oh just because the storm went calm with the waving of Jesus’ hands just mean the timing was right because the storm was ending. They do not take in account all the other miracles that were performed and witnesses saw.

    For me to say that manifestations are the “only” thing that God did and can do then yes your points would be valid but that is no what I said at all. What I said is “In many examples I have presented as proof a manifestation.” And this one “Not to mention the prophecies in the bible and all the other things I pointed out. (That are true I might add).” NOT just this one but many i.e. Creation, supernatural events, The Bible, Jesus, prophecies that came true, predictions of future events and so many more. Not just he changed a dude from a druggie to a non druggie.

    Not to mention that atheist like Tracie and Otto do not even believe that Jesus existed when everything under the sun points to Jesus.

    You can go to George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), or drive down Clinton Street and such this is a way to acknowledge someone we name libraries after them, and you even have Trump towers, tell me Trump doesn’t exist, so it is done all the time, (if you see a building named after someone, you know there is a builder and the person it is named after) I will add even another example of Jesus’ existence, Jesus had 11 apostles and people love and adored them so much they named places and building after them like we do here in the US. There is no building named after Atheists of any sort that is known to me. There are not as many buildings named after Buda or Mohamed. You all are denying history in its entirety, to say that Jesus did not exist is to say that the apostles didn’t either and there is HISTORIC PROOF that they did once exist. Are you all saying that St. Peter
    doesn’t exist or to say St. John Lateran or St. Paul or Santa Maria Maggiore (Virgin Mary) are all just fake or made up people to just put up nice looking buildings?

    What about the statues of famous people, Lincoln Memorial is a great example, we have more apostles honored in this manner James, son of Alphaeus and Mark the Evangelist are more proof. Do we really need more examples? Where is Mohammad’s statue? These were real people and real lives with real history and to refute it, is an absolute absurdity.

    So I am adding to the proof in its entirety of radical change. Proof that there were real people that were moved to the point of not drinking or abusing themselves with drugs anymore or to moved to read the bible everyday for the rest of their lives or sell everything and give to the poor or sell everything to do mission work overseas or build great buildings not in idol warship but in honor of that person in acknowledgment that GOD DOES EXIST! 2 billion people were moved so dramatically that they can’t be convinced to do anything but God’s will.

    In that Book The Lucifer Effect : the experiments would not work with true Christians. Remember we keep The law was made as a mirror for us. In the same way, we don’t realize what a bad state we are in until we look into the "mirror" of the Ten Commandments. Well look at the discription of the book

    “This is a book that dares to hold a mirror up to mankind, showing us that we might not be who we think we are. While forcing us to reexamine what we are capable of doing when caught up in the crucible of behavioral dynamics, though, Zimbardo also offers hope. We are capable of resisting evil, he argues,”

    Andrew states “I am with Matt here. This has become a completely pointless endeavor. Dan has not learned a single thing” umm Andrew who is teaching who here. You are the ones that haven’t learned anything that is being taught to you. REMEMBER you that (Denies) the existence of God. Your thinking and reasoning is flawed to be polite.

    Andrew also reveals a point that I have been making here at this blog, the book claims “the idea that the social setting and the system contaminate the individual, rather than the other way around." Atheist are trying to remove God from society entirely. Tracie believes that by convincing people that there is NO GOD then she is not harming people. Blind, leading the blind off cliffs.

    Atheists are trying to be their own God and deny that lying is immoral or adultery is immoral Matt said ” don't believe that homosexuality is immoral. Neither is heterosexual sex outside of marriage (among consenting adults). I don't believe that disbelief/apostasy is immoral - for that matter, I don't believe that thoughts (lust, etc.) can be immoral. They can lead to actions that are moral, as actions have consequences. I don't believe that abortion is immoral.” Killing babies is not immoral? This is the guy you all are listening to and following. Remember Good tree=Good fruit and I believe sexual diseases and teen pregnancies and teens having abortions because of the fornication are all examples of Bad Fruit and there would be no AIDS epidemic without fornication or that 1 and 3 kids now have sexually transmitted diseases instead of 1 and 38 kids back in the “Free love” year of the 60’s. It is getting worst everyday and you don’t even realize it. You have a fog over your eyes placed there by God.

    Here is another proof of God and the hypocracy of Atheists. Do any atheists have home insurance? If you do you use a system that believes in God. As in “ACT OF GOD” disasters. Why, don’t you just take your chances and not use insurance because they believe in God? (T&C)

    Tracie said ” If this statement were true, converted Xians would be on the cover of Scientific America.” You mean like Sir Newton?

    Tracie said ” Gravity does not prove Gravity Fairies.” But wait a minute, Sir Isaac Newton did discover Gravity and created law’s of motion for the scientific community he also invented the reflecting telescope had a tremendous contributions to advanced physics and BTW he “possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature.” He was a Christian and a scientist.

    I have proven the flawed scientific principles of a person you worship called Richard Dawkins the atheist who believes it is easy to create (like God) eyes with fishbowls and lasers, without even grasping the idea that the atoms to construct the laser and fishbowl is already created and he is mimiking not creating. He is a fool and you consider him great, does this make his followers fools? His has flawed experiments and bias conclusions, I call biased science, and he can’t be taken seriously but you all sure do. why would you follow his flawed resoning and not Sir Newton’s?

    So you deny the scientific discoverer of “laws of motion” principles. So I Guess you “DO” believe that gravity faries exist if you do not even believe in NEWTON and his mind. Are you all selective to believe in scientist that are only Atheist? I am beginning to understant the denial part of you label as in denial of the existance of God, reason, true science, life, history and a myriad of other things. You are a pitiful group, so how many followers do you actually have anyway. Is it 10-20 at this point or something higher? So far the only ones that chime in are about 10 or so, um is that it?

    Side note: Tracie said ” mean--other than "god forgives you" when you continue to do all the same sorts of things you did previously--what exactly really changed there? ”

    This you described is what is called a FALSE CONVERT not a Christian. More about it asx here

    If you “LIVE” in sin for a season then you are of the devil. Christians are transformed forever. Eternal life begins here on earth, forever. BTW Tracie C&C are of the devil. They had nothing but hierocracies that I noticed when I was a young Christian. They hold a corporation type hierarchy and that is not what these verses say. Just because they base their beliefs on the bible doesn’t mean anything at all, look at Catholicism. If they produce people like Andrea Yates and that other woman Mary Winkler, who killed her husband, the preacher at Church of Christ. Look at the fruits, Bad trees can’t produce Good fruit it is impossible. C&C=Andrea Yates and killers alike= bad fruit. Catholicism=largest collection of pedophiles= bad fruit.

    Tracie said ” You say not just your mindset, but your behavior really, truly changes. If that's so, do you still need forgiveness? ” Of course you do! Try that in court I know I raped that woman Judge, but I have changed now and my behavior truly has changed. The just Judge would say “you should change your behavior but you still have committed the crime and justice must be satisfied.” That is why you need forgiving even if you lied once in your life Tracie. Have you ever told a lie? …

    I noticed when I give great augments they seem to be hurriedly buried behind 4 or 5 more blogs. Is that just me being paranoid or is that deliberate. I can recap on newer blogs, would that be better?

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  38. -----There are radical flaws in your logic and arguments. Again you are taking what I am saying OUT OF CONTEXT and reading what you want to back up your conclusion. You are ignoring facts about what I said as a whole and picking things out. -----

    I'm doing nothing of the kind, and you know it. Tracie has been arguing with you for weeks about what a manifesting god would look like, and how he would manifest. You've been weak and evasive constantly, and you finally trot out that "transformed lives" are a manifestation of your god.
    I am totally justified in pointing out that Islam transforms many lives in the same way you claim Christianity does, and you have no explanation for this which helps your case. NONE. A Muslim who kicked drugs because of Allah (and Muhammad his Prophet) is a painfully uncomfortable fact for you, so you ignore it. Either God is transforming people with contradictory messages, or Satan is helping the Muslim while God helps you. Both possibilities are patently illogical on their faces.


    ----Atheists do this with the bible and many other things. They are selective. They claim oh just because the storm went calm with the waving of Jesus’ hands just mean the timing was right because the storm was ending. They do not take in account all the other miracles that were performed and witnesses saw.----


    Dan, you clueless git, nobody is claiming anything of the kind. YOU are the one who simply presumes that this 2,000+ year old book is an accurate representation of recorded history, and seem genuinely befuddled by people who aren't willing to take the text at face value the way you are. Many atheists are much more likely to say the calming-the-waters story is simply a legendary fabrication, rather than simply presuming (as you do) that the incident really happened (and can be explained as coincidence by non-believers). Again, however, this is a tangent which is irrelevant to your last claim that changed lives manifest god. You are a master at ignoring your opponents' arguments and simply moving on to something else. Whoever said arguing with the credulous is like trying to nail jelly to a wall definitely had you in mind.
    Every single argument and defense you've made here since you volunteered yourself into this blog, can be made in almost identical ways by say, Muslims (for example), with only very minor and ultimately unimportant differences in detail. You have NO persuasive response to this rather uncomfortable but true piece of information, other than you happen to have faith that the Muslim is wrong and that you are right. He says the same about you for the same reasons, but you simply don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan Moron: I have proven the flawed scientific principles of a person you worship called Richard Dawkins the atheist who believes it is easy to create (like God) eyes with fishbowls and lasers...

    Dan, you sad, sad little boy. You don't even understand any of Dawkins' scientific principles, and as for proving their "flaws," you can't even write a grammatically correct English sentence, much less put two words together without misspelling one of them. You have about as much chance of demonstrating intellectual superiority to a world-class scientist like Dawkins as a gerbil has of gnawing through Hoover Dam.

    You're a total joke, Dan. But keep flattering yourself, by all means. You're the only audience who thinks the ridiculous babble you're reduced to typing by now is anything other than the petulant boasting of a child who's trying to prove himself to the big kids.

    Oh yeah. Teen pregnancy is at a 60-year low point.

    As for anything else you have to say: Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  40. “if you see a building named after someone, you know there is a builder and the person it is named after… What about the statues of famous people, Lincoln Memorial is a great example.”

    I saw a bunch of statues of Mickey Mouse in Florida. I think there’s even a building or two in his name. He’s real too right? My mom says yes but my schoolyard chums say no and throw things at me. But they are just blind unbelievers to the glory of Mickey the Mouse and will one day soon suffer for their callousness. Mother told me so.

    “[Christians] can’t be convinced to do anything but God’s will.”

    “You [atheists] have a fog over your eyes placed there by God.”

    So, tell us again… what are you doing here?

    For Mouse,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Here is another proof of God and the hypocracy of Atheists. Do any atheists have home insurance? If you do you use a system that believes in God. As in “ACT OF GOD” disasters. Why, don’t you just take your chances and not use insurance because they believe in God?"

    Bless you Clever-Dan, I'm going to be smiling all day. Cute as that was I doubt even you really think that’s valid point.

    From Wikipedia:
    “Act of God or act of nature is a legal term[1] for events outside of human control, such as sudden floods or other natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible.”

    It is easier than saying “unforeseen, naturally occurring events” but means the same.

    Dan, please tell us we believe in God and are in denial because we say “oh my God!” in surprise as opposed to simply using a colloquial saying. Please? It’s adorable!

    C’mon, if I stub my toe and shout “Sweet mother of God” I accept the virgin birth, right? Oooo, and uttering “Sweet zombie Jesus!” as I groggily awaken with a hangover (the wine was water when I drank it, swear) is just my way of profesing the gospal truth of the ressurection. I love it!

    Oh, I get it now. Dan is really just Matt. There’s no way this guy is real anymore. See what you’ll fall for when you forget to be skeptical. You almost had me there.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.