tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post893993838424463200..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Now he's going to be a total divaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57283308803561701712007-04-12T22:54:00.000-05:002007-04-12T22:54:00.000-05:00Are you guys for real why did you block me so I ca...Are you guys for real why did you block me so I can't see your site? <BR/><BR/>Why does it only point to Google.com homepage when I go to your site?<BR/><BR/>Take it off or I will tell everyone I can about what you are doing.<BR/><BR/>You are playing unfair by calling me names and then not allowing me to comment.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90390800820072459122007-03-28T18:08:00.000-05:002007-03-28T18:08:00.000-05:00And again with the wrong comment section... :(And again with the wrong comment section... :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14981090673804263392007-03-28T18:03:00.000-05:002007-03-28T18:03:00.000-05:00>Tracie ” And when I saw that what was true confli...>Tracie ” And when I saw that what was true conflicted with my belief in god's existence, then truth won out.” prove this statement.<BR/><BR/><B>_My belief_</B> in god was founded on many different things. One was, for example, that the Bible was god’s word. When I realized that there is no claim from god that this is his word, I was left with the reality that people put this book together and claimed god endorsed their actions. <B>_My belief_</B> in god was that actions of people required clear authorization from god. This was lacking—and created a _truth_ that conflicted with _my belief_ in god. Therefore, “what was true” conflicted with “my belief in god.” There are many more examples I could provide, but this one should be enough to illustrate my point.<BR/><BR/>>“Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. ” this is a false statement, Tracie look at the definition you can’t change it. They deny the existence of God. I like you Tracie I hope God will touch both you and Stephen someday in your lives.<BR/><BR/>Here is the definition you provided:<BR/><BR/>a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst) <BR/>n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God<BR/><BR/>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”?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I disbelieve the existence of god. I am an atheist by the definition above.<BR/><BR/>If I said: One who drives a truck or a car is a driver. Would you say that if someone only drove a car, and never a truck—that they are _not_ then a driver? You’re being argumentative here for the sake of being argumentative, and there is no point to it. It only derails us from the discussion: Does god exist?<BR/><BR/>Why are you creating a diversion? If I think your belief in god is unjustified, and I don’t believe in god’s existence; what difference does it make what you label me? Again—you can call me “Satanist” if you like. Whatever label you slap on me--even if it’s clearly a misconception (such as this latest distortion)—I don’t really care. The point is: I think your claim of god’s existence is unsupported and based on irrational reasoning. And that’s what I’ve been arguing all this time. Suddenly, you decided, that if you can label me something different, that somehow changes my claim that your beliefs are unsupported?<BR/><BR/>Call me “X” if it makes you feel better. It doesn’t matter to me at all. The problem remains that you still have failed to prove your premise. And it still appears as though no god exists.<BR/><BR/>And to make the point about “atheist” as crystal clear as possible:<BR/><BR/>Many people claim they are abducted by aliens.<BR/><BR/>They present “evidence” of this.<BR/><BR/>The evidence they present is extremely interpretive and inconclusive.<BR/><BR/>They show nothing that proves aliens even exist, let alone are abducting people.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, I do not believe aliens are abducting people. And based on the total lack of evidence, it appears the odds are slim to none their claims are based in reality—since nothing in reality justifies what they’re claiming.<BR/><BR/>It is logically possible that one day aliens may come forward and claim accountability for abducting all these people; in which case, I would have to now believe aliens actually _were_ abducting these people (or the aliens are lying).<BR/><BR/>But until aliens come forward to say this is occurring, I’d have to be pretty gullible and have extremely low standards of evidence in order to accept the current claims that aliens exist and are abducting people.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Plug in god, and you’ve got my stance on god’s existence.<BR/><BR/>I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. I am whatever you want to call me. But no matter what you call me: I believe your claims are tripe. And you’ve offered nothing more convincing than: “Well, logically speaking, a god _could_ exist—you can’t deny that!”<BR/><BR/>Congratulations, you’re belief in god is as well supported as alien abduction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38646139180833454332007-03-27T13:48:00.000-05:002007-03-27T13:48:00.000-05:00Dang! POsted at the wrong comment section again!Dang! POsted at the wrong comment section again!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38484595528872279832007-03-27T13:47:00.000-05:002007-03-27T13:47:00.000-05:00When I say: “I am an agnostic atheist.” I want to ...When I say: “I am an agnostic atheist.” I want to point out that I wasn’t trying to be sneaky withholding this, the point simply never came up before as relevant. But if you go back and reread my posts, you’ll see I’ve supported the agnostic/atheist stance throughout my posts:<BR/><BR/>“Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. In other words, if I do not actively adopt a belief in god, I am an atheist. This means that people who, for example, say “I’m not sure if I believe there is a god or not,” are atheists—because they do not have belief in god. They lack belief in god, and are by definition atheists. Many people confuse this with agnosticism, but an agnostic is a statement of knowledge, and not comparable to an atheist, because they deal with different realms (belief versus knowledge)—they’re apples and oranges. <B>Most agnostics would also be atheists, because they feel there is insufficient evidence to support a determination of god’s existence.</B> An agnostic could still believe in god, but it is odd to say any valid/pertinent information on the subject is totally lacking (agnostic)—so I’ll believe it anyway (deist/theist).”<BR/><BR/>And I also brought up agnostic theists as well:<BR/><BR/>“In fact, if you truly believe faith is required, then you're arguing for agnosticism--claiming, in fact, that nobody can know there is a god--they simply have to believe without the knowledge to support the belief. You would be an agnostic theist if this is your stance.”<BR/><BR/>I have never claimed that agnosticism and atheism were incompatible, and in fact, from these quotes, claimed clearly that theism/atheism can either be based on, or disconnected from agnosticism.<BR/><BR/>If you’d have asked me if I am an agnostic, I would not have denied it. You just never asked. I’m also, for the record, however, an atheist. And I’ve never denied that either.<BR/><BR/>You appear to be ignorant regarding the definitions of these labels and their implications. And I recommend perhaps informing yourself a little before you continue to post on this topic. I’m not trying to be mean—but you’re really making yourself look foolish because you’re spewing ideas about topics you obviously haven’t studied or spent any time investigating. And you have a forum here of atheists, who know what an atheist is, and you’re trying to debate that nobody in a forum full of atheists knows what an atheist is or what atheism means. Just some humble advice that could be helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34126648343522778822007-03-27T08:34:00.000-05:002007-03-27T08:34:00.000-05:00Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the conversat...Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the conversation had moved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40175777390727628162007-03-26T19:35:00.000-05:002007-03-26T19:35:00.000-05:00For anyone interested that may not have noticed ye...For anyone interested that may not have noticed yet, Dan has moved to the "Christian Love" thread.<BR/><BR/>How appropriate.Saurian200https://www.blogger.com/profile/00670029633130988783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56935013296205223332007-03-26T17:38:00.000-05:002007-03-26T17:38:00.000-05:00I don't know if Dan will post any more or not. But...I don't know if Dan will post any more or not. But I just keep thinking of how really difficult it is for me to internalize what just occurred.<BR/><BR/>Dan just posted a dictionary defintion of "atheist" that reflects correct, common usage (not some jargon term or some rarely used definition at the bottom of the list in the entry) as "the definition" he was putting foward for "atheist."<BR/><BR/>Then, after nobody contests it, and everyone agrees with him, he turns around and contests his own definition in his very next post.<BR/><BR/>It was such an obviously open dishonest reversal that I'm still stunned.<BR/><BR/>On top of it, what really just confounded me most of all was the realization that he'd rather do something this sure to make him lose face 100 percent, than to just say, "Oh, I guess I didn't know what an atheist was. I must have had a misconception of the word."<BR/><BR/>I recall my glory days as a fundy out to win souls. And I remember how _really_ hard it felt to admit I was wrong about something. And watching this last episode with Dan just really reminds me of how happy I am to not be involved in that any longer. I no longer have to become defensive and say absurd things to try to "back myself out of a corner" while having a discussion. I can actually back out gracefully by saying, "Oh, guess I was wrong."<BR/><BR/>I recall on another forum some fundamentalists accused me of not being able to admit when I was wrong. I put in links in my very next post where I had admitted to others I was wrong. If I'm wrong, I admit it. It's really not even hard. And I have publicly posted many times as well my gratitude for someone pointing out my error. Although it may be somewhat embarrassing in the moment, the truth is, it saves me in the long run from continuing to say something that is incorrect (and maybe some people just think I'm ignorant and don't tell me).<BR/><BR/>The person who actually shows me I'm wrong is doing me a favor in the long haul. If they do it gracefully, I'm appreciative; but even if they don't, I still have to be glad I found out I was laboring under a misconception or a false assumption.<BR/><BR/>In this case, Dan had it _right_ the first time, but then threw down something wrong and false, just because what was "right" wasn't in agreement with his misconception of what an "atheist" actually is. All because this is, in large part, what Xianity does to some people. I don't know if he was like this before he became a Xian. But Xianity either made him this defensive; or it provides a haven to perpetuate his unhealthy defensive behavior--which is a huge impediment to personal growth.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, a lot of people were mean to Dan--whether justified or not, I'm not judging; but I have been in his shoes, and it sucks. I just didn't know how badly at the time. And I feel honest sympathy for his position. I know he won't have any epiphanies in the state of mind he's in now; but maybe one day he'll get the idea that it's OK to "not know" everything; and maybe that will help him get comfortable with not feeling like he has to use "god" as the God of the Gaps any longer.<BR/><BR/>Xianity does that to you. They tell you so many times what "you believe" that you no longer can discern what you _actually_ believe for yourself. The word "atheist" is like this. Austin Cline has a clip from an article from another fundy at his site describing how there is really no such thing as an atheist. And I also recently saw an article at Associated Content from a Xian doing exactly what Dan just did. She first wrote the definition of atheist as "one who disbelieves in god" and then went on to say that agnostics "aren't sure" (wrong definition), and that "atheists" are people who say they _know_ there is no god--they are sure. And I couldn't believe that she really _read_ the definition before she wrote that. As a Xian, you _do_ read it, but the info doesn't sink in. You read it, but you get out of it, only your preconceived idea of what you've been told it means. I'm betting that even as Dan posted "one who disbelieves..." the idea of what that _actually_ meant didn't sink in. When I pointed out what "belief" means (vs. Knowledge), I think it really was just too much for the meme to cope with in the moment--so it just had a small meltdown and threw out false absurdity--a made up definition that totally contrasted the _real_ definition in order to justify itself. It really is a viscious mind parasite for some people. It's not that they are choosing not to hear you--it's that they really are, at the time, incapable. You say "red"--they hear "green." And you can say it as loud and clear as you like--they really only can hear/see green at that moment. I have no doubt that Dan really has a unique perspective of the dialogue that actually occurred at this forum--and that nobody else here would share anything remotely close to his interpretation. I could go on, but I'll stop here.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the long note; but I just felt it should be said, and that it might best be said by someone who has walked for some years, herself, in something akin to Dan's shoes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18886502931596693482007-03-25T14:04:00.000-05:002007-03-25T14:04:00.000-05:00A Bible bum bumbled byAnd mumbled some dumb fumble...A Bible bum bumbled by<BR/>And mumbled some dumb fumbled lie<BR/>His stumbling caused some faith to crumble<BR/>Perhaps he should have been more humbleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28636607420312149692007-03-24T15:09:00.000-05:002007-03-24T15:09:00.000-05:00My Dearest Love Dan,Well done, my good and faithfu...My Dearest Love Dan,<BR/><BR/>Well done, my good and faithful servant! I was a little nervous about the status of our relationship, but these last few comments of yours have put my heart at ease!<BR/><BR/><I>“We all sin and fall short Romans 3:23 I am a wretched sinner and deserve hell. ... we all sin, every last one of us.”</I><BR/><BR/>That's right, you bad boy! Believe it! This is my favorite lie of all! Nothing promotes the distrust and discord I thrive on more than assuming <B>everyone</B> is evil!<BR/><BR/><I>“[discovering truth] is not what God wants us to do, can you back that statement up scripturally? Remember he did NOT want us to eat from the “tree of Knowledge” he wanted us to TRUST him. What is the meaning of science oh yea “Knowledge”. Hmmm coincidence, I think not. ...<BR/>Prove that science, or the pursuit there of, is desired by God for us to seek then the Truth of the Lord.”</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, my glorious servant and lover! It brings a tear to my eye to see you defending my deceptions so boldly!<BR/><BR/>I especially loved how you applied the spin doctoring I have taught you in the case of telling those meddlesome rational atheists exactly what they are:<BR/><BR/><I>“a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst)<BR/>n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God<BR/>...<BR/>Let’s get to the root of the matter, no pun intended. The root word of “A” means no or without as in abyss - without bottom; achromatic - without color; anhydrous - without water. Other examples asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism<BR/>This can not be denied even by your pragmatism.<BR/><BR/>Theist or Greek word theos means God we can all agree. You are all claiming by calling yourselves atheists that there is “NO GOD” the burden of proof is on you and your name. In Greek you would be called atheos Defend your label or call yourselves something else. Atheist means NO GOD no matter what you may think it means, that is what it means. You can not rewrite something to fit your viewpoint, ... You are all lost in a delusion that the word means something else.”</I><BR/><BR/>I just love how you brazenly redefined “atheist” to fit your viewpoint, then in the same paragraph, accused <B>them</B> of doing just that! The bold recklessness of your lies will turn away so many Christian souls, and drive them straight into the warm, welcoming arms of my eternal Hell!<BR/><BR/>Oh Dan, my cuddly wumpkins! I just wuv wuv wuv you... to death! ;)<BR/><BR/>For My Glory (and maybe Dan's, too),<BR/>SatanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63823149401025538182007-03-24T12:13:00.000-05:002007-03-24T12:13:00.000-05:00Dan, I hate to comment on one of your ridiculous t...Dan, I hate to comment on one of your ridiculous tangents, but I can't help myself... You are just so obviously wrong.<BR/><BR/><B>THEOS</B> (θεός) is the Greek word for "deity, god".<BR/><BR/>So <B>ATHEOS</B> means "no deity, god".<BR/><BR/><B>THEISM</B> is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.<BR/><BR/>So <B>ATHEIST</B> is the disbelief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.<BR/><BR/>So, wrong ...AGAIN...<BR/><BR/>Dan, the fact that you have to change the subject over and over again, ignore arguments that you have lost, and repeat arguments we have previously refuted, means that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE.<BR/><BR/>You have not won a SINGLE point, Dan. A SINGLE POINT IN A MONTH!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40971275497424221702007-03-24T10:16:00.000-05:002007-03-24T10:16:00.000-05:00>”Of course I can scripturally back my claim that ...>”Of course I can scripturally back my claim that truth is preferable to lies<BR/><BR/>Just for grins, how about Psalm 15:2-5?<BR/><BR/>"He...who speaks the truth from his heart...will never be shaken"<BR/><BR/>Psalm 31:5 calls Yaweh "the God of truth"--which would seem to be placing a value on truth?<BR/><BR/>Psalm 45:4 describes God riding forth "victoriously in behalf of truth..." That sounds like the psalmist considers that god values truth?<BR/><BR/>Psalm 51:6 says that god "surely" desires truth in the "inner parts" of people.<BR/><BR/>Here's a really good one: Psalm 52: 3: "You love evil rather than speaking the truth."<BR/><BR/>It sounds to me that the Bible very much places a high value on truth. And I would say that it places a high value on truth over falsehood across the board. This makes verification for a Xian--knowing what he/she says is true--extremely important, I would think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26605801984160397252007-03-24T09:58:00.000-05:002007-03-24T09:58:00.000-05:00>Think of it another way. Imagine if a scientist p...>Think of it another way. Imagine if a scientist publishes a paper called "Gravity Fairies and You: How those cute little critters keep you and I planted on the Earth" (pardon the borrow, Tracie).<BR/><BR/>No need to pardon--I'm glad my metaphor is coming in helpful somewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14048344157871718062007-03-24T09:47:00.000-05:002007-03-24T09:47:00.000-05:00Typo correction. When I wrote:>You proved the defi...Typo correction. When I wrote:<BR/><BR/>>You proved the definition yourself—one who disbelieves in god is also an atheist.<BR/><BR/>I meant "provided" not "proved."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43131285452479175072007-03-24T09:44:00.000-05:002007-03-24T09:44:00.000-05:00>You are all denying that your arguments are based...>You are all denying that your arguments are based on no evidence so therefore God does not exist.<BR/><BR/>And your arguments are based on an assumption that god exists, which you have not yet been able to verify. A huge difference is that you then go on to extrapolate supernatural realms, people defying physics, inspired books, universe creation ideas and on and on—without ever bothering to first verify your premise that there is even a god.<BR/><BR/>My argument so far has only been that your argument is baseless. And until you provide manifestation of a god, it is baseless. I don’t know whether there is a good or not. But I know you haven’t validated your premise—so my argument that your argument is baseless requires no more evidence than to point out that you’ve failed to identify a god. And you have failed to ID a god—unless I’ve missed something so far.<BR/><BR/>Your argument that nobody can prove a god does not exist in no way validates your claim that god does exist. You still have to prove your claim. The fallacy you lately appealed to: the argument from ignorance does give you the benefit that baseless speculation (guessing something is true without any verification) may still turn out to be true. It’s commonly known as a “lucky guess”. That doesn’t mean that just because a lucky guess may turn out to be accurate on occasion, that we should all accept baseless speculation (unverified assumptions) as true until prove false. You’re not understanding the implications of this fallacy. It is stating that you may not be wrong. It is NOT stating that you are right. You still have to prove your claim that there is a god for anything else you offer to be based in a verified reality.<BR/><BR/>>You are all claiming by calling yourselves atheists that there is “NO GOD”<BR/><BR/>Incorrect. You proved the definition yourself—one who disbelieves in god is also an atheist. By the accepted standard definition (you provided—and that is found in most established dictionaries—the standard of English language meaning), anyone who cannot say “I believe in god,” is an atheist. Now that the correct definition isn’t working for your goals, you’re trying to make up Dan’s personal definition and replace the one that everyone else in English-speaking nations uses. You’re reaching here—and it’s intellectually dishonest of you to try to do this. You offered the standard accepted definition—now you don’t want the standard, accepted definition anymore, because it doesn’t support you—so you just deny the standard, accepted definition now. Again—just total, intellectual dishonesty.<BR/><BR/>Again, in all my dialogue with you, I have focused on one thing: Showing you your premise is baseless. You have not proven your premise yet in all this time, so I have no reason to assume I’m incorrect. Now you’re trying to claim I’ve been arguing that there is no god—something I have, in my text, clearly indicated I’m not attempting to argue. I even offered quotes to show that I pointed out clearly that there could be a god—but that your arguments for your god are unsupported and therefore not plausible.<BR/><BR/>You can’t defend against that. So now you’re trying to claim the argument has been me trying to prove to you that there is no god. But YOU came to this forum with YOUR claim that there IS a god. And I’ve only responded to your arguments.<BR/><BR/>Stephen, on the other hand, took on your god specifically to show he doesn’t exist—by logical contradiction. But that’s Stephen’s mode of argumentation—and not mine. You can’t say “you’re all saying…” because we’re not. We are all approaching it in different ways. And based on this latest post of yours, I would say my mode has been fairly successful, since you’re now attempting a redirection of the dialogue rather than focus on proving your premise.<BR/><BR/>Redirect away. You still have not proven the claim you came to this forum to support—that there is a god.<BR/><BR/>>I understand your positions,<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, you don’t appear to have ever understood mine. You simply told me what my arguments were—without actually reading them. Arguing that your arguments for X are baseless is not the same as arguing that X cannot be true. You never understood this throughout the entire discussion; and I never realized this logic had escaped you until now.<BR/><BR/>>I don’t think there is anyone on this earth that doesn’t believe this man existed besides you Tracie.<BR/><BR/>My quote you are responding to: “First of all, I never said there was no Jesus. You assumed it, I’m guessing?”<BR/><BR/>Here is an excellent example of how you don’t care what I say—you’re just going to say I said whatever you wanted me to say. Why am I bothering to talk? You don’t hear what I actually say. You hear what you wish I said. Beyond that, there are a number of books available on the topic of Jesus’ existence. Many people don’t believe he existed. I think it’s possible. I don’t know. But whether or not Jesus lived is not relevant unless there is a god. And you have avoided showing god manifesting in reality so far—and the Jesus question is rendered moot until you can show there is a god.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1069282203494050452007-03-24T00:23:00.000-05:002007-03-24T00:23:00.000-05:00Stephen, my confused friend, was there ever a time...<I>Stephen, my confused friend, was there ever a time I said that Christians do not sin?</I><BR/><BR/>To answer this, let's look a few lines lower in the very same reply...<BR/><BR/><I>a Christian would not fornicate because it is against God’s will although the urges are there God gives us the strength to overcome the sinning. ... a Christian that sees filth on TV would close his eyes and change the channel. ... If we continue to sin or willing to sin and have no remorse or repentance then you are called a false convert.</I><BR/><BR/>Here, you made a few very specific claims about "sins" a Christian <I>would <B>not</B> commit</I>, and that if such sins were still committed, the alleged Christian is a false convert. That's a pretty clear statement that you believe <I>true</I> Christians do not sin, but <I>false converts</I> may continue to sin.<BR/><BR/>Given your lack of remorse or repentance for the lies, hatred and self-conceit you have persistently displayed so far, it is clear to all who have been following this conversation, atheists and Christians alike, that you are a "false convert" according to your own accounting.<BR/><BR/>I'm not confused at all. I know exactly what you're doing: directly contradicting yourself. In other words, you're telling lies, <I>habitually</I>, and without regret.<BR/><BR/><I>An atheist would say lies are ok a Christian wouldn’t want to lie.</I><BR/><BR/>That very sentence of yours was an unfounded and highly prejudiced lie. You have born false witness against all of us.<BR/><BR/><I>None</I> of the atheists I know--<I>not one</I>--has said, or would say, that "lies are ok". Rather, we have consistently explained that we hold <I>truth</I> in very high esteem--higher, even, than personal convenience or comfort. You, however, have demonstrated your capacity for telling and perpetuating known lies, have explicitly endorsed lying, and have even gone so far as to insist that merely <I>seeking truth</I> is a bad idea that scripture does not support. If Christians don't lie or don't want to lie, then you're <I>obviously not</I> a Christian, by your own reasoning.<BR/><BR/><I><B>”Moreover, we do have at least three conclusive logical proofs that there is "no God" with the properties you wish to apply to your God. Let's review:”</B><BR/>I understand your points, but to repeat myself to refute all of what you just said I submit from my last post:</I><BR/><BR/>What you said wasn't a logical refutation of any of those arguments the first time you said it, and merely repeating it doesn't render it a refutation.<BR/><BR/>At best, what you wrote appears to <I>support</I> the logical arguments I made, but only seeks to <I>excuse</I> your God's <I>inability</I> or <I>unwillingness</I> to prevent tragedy, or even to deliberately <I>force</I> tragedy in order to make a point or inflate his own ego.<BR/><BR/>The logical arguments refuting the existence or relevance of a <I>supernatural, holy,</I> or <I>trustworthy</I> deity within our universe remain unrefuted. Feel free to try again.<BR/><BR/>You should be aware, however, that the Problem of Evil (essentially, the refutation of the existence of a <I>trustworthy</I> deity in a universe where "evil" occurs), appears to be irrefutable. It was introduced to Western civilization by the Greek philosopher Epicurus in approximately 300 BCE. An entire branch of theology known as "theodicy" has tried in vain to refute the PoE for at least 2,300 years. The best responses that millions of well-motivated theologians have been able to produce in all that time are not refutations, but lame excuses for why it might be reasonable to believe in, trust and worship a deity who is necessarily irrelevant or evil, and by all accounts untrustworthy. Even in that scaled-back effort, they have utterly failed.<BR/><BR/>So have you.<BR/><BR/>So stop lying about us failing to prove there is "no God". We <I>have</I> done that, at least three times over.<BR/><BR/>That is, unless you are using a definition of "God" that does <I>not</I> involve him being supernatural, holy, or trustworthy. As a reminder, you <I>still</I> haven't clearly defined or described the God in which you claim to believe.<BR/><BR/><I><B>”The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, for example, has considerably better character development, and a far more cohesive plot.”</B><BR/>But it will never save you from the eternal lake of fire. Just a moot point.</I><BR/><BR/>That is a very moot point indeed, as the Bible <I>also</I> will never save anyone from "the eternal lake of fire." Fortunately, there is something that probably will: <I>it does not appear to exist!</I><BR/><BR/><I><B>”Of course I can scripturally back my claim that truth is preferable to lies, but there is no need to go so far.”</B><BR/>Prove it, puddin! Prove that science, or the pursuit there of, is desired by God for us to seek then the Truth of the Lord. I will admit I am wrong if you do. If I am confused about God’s message then please be a friend and point me in the right direction.</I><BR/><BR/>No, "puddin", I cannot point you in "the right direction" by calling your attention to scripture, because scripture is no more reliable than the weakest link in the long chain of unknowledgeable people who wrote, edited, canonized, translated and interpreted it. You <I>are</I> massively confused about "God's message", in no small part because you are confused about the existence, relevance or nature of the God it describes--as we have explained to you in excruciatingly meticulous detail, over and over and over again.<BR/><BR/>At this point, I almost prefer that you <I>remain</I> an ignoramous who believes, and loudly proclaims, that truth is <I>not</I> preferable to lies. Your unabashed advocacy of willful ignorance and deliberate falsehood--of being <I>stupid on purpose</I>--makes Christianity look <I>very, very bad</I>. (Just ask your Christian friends and family members what they think of your representation here, of their God and their beliefs.) That outcome is just fine with me. Until you are able to recognize and acknowledge that <I>seeking truth</I> is even a <I>good idea</I>, I don't want you on my side. By all means, remain a <B>proudly ignorant "false convert" "Christian" LIAR</B> as long as you like. That's your choice, and the consequences are yours to bear.<BR/><BR/>That said, if you still insist upon having <I>scriptural</I> support for the basic, self-evident concept that <I>truth is good</I>, I recommend asking your pastor, your wife, or even your kids. I'm pretty confident that <I>all</I> of them think <I>truth is good</I> and <I>lies are bad</I>, and will be more than able to point you to <I>numerous</I> scriptural passages which say so.<BR/><BR/>I must point out that you stopped being "a friend" the moment you welcomed yourself into our virtual living room, pulled down your pants to moon us, and then proceeded to systematically defecate your lies and insults upon our virtual carpet, for weeks. You overstayed your welcome long ago.<BR/><BR/>If you insist upon sticking around, please ask your wife or your pastor to review your comments before you post them. You could almost certainly benefit from a little "Christian" accountability.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03130354533571499310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43823768263719676762007-03-23T23:53:00.000-05:002007-03-23T23:53:00.000-05:00Matt,Mr. Dillahunty is still my dad...Matt is fine...Matt,<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Dillahunty is still my dad...Matt is fine. :)</B><BR/><BR/>Sorry. Matt it is then.<BR/><BR/><B>There's no way I'm allowing public ass-kissing on the show, even if it's my ass that is being kissed.</B><BR/><BR/>And that's why you're still on public access.<BR/><BR/>I'm joking. I'm joking. Still sex sells. I'm just saying that if it was The Atheist Orgasm...<BR/><BR/>Maybe not.<BR/><BR/><B>I'm wondering if Dan is ever going to answer my very simple, yes-no question...</B><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't get my hopes up. The human lifespan is only so long.Saurian200https://www.blogger.com/profile/00670029633130988783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86252599530343280222007-03-23T20:46:00.000-05:002007-03-23T20:46:00.000-05:00What do you say, Mr Dillahunty? Of course it would...<B>What do you say, Mr Dillahunty? Of course it would probably loose something in the podcast.</B><BR/><BR/>Mr. Dillahunty is still my dad...Matt is fine. :)<BR/><BR/>There's no way I'm allowing public ass-kissing on the show, even if it's my ass that is being kissed.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering if Dan is ever going to answer my very simple, yes-no question...Matt D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53770686493305469582007-03-23T20:11:00.000-05:002007-03-23T20:11:00.000-05:00Anonymous,If you really want to raise the bar, tel...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>If you really want to raise the bar, tell Dan that you'll not only kiss his ass but you'll do it on an episode of The Atheist Experience. Now how's that for an irresistable offer. <BR/><BR/>What do you say, Mr Dillahunty? Of course it would probably loose something in the podcast.<BR/><BR/>JPonion,<BR/><BR/>I'll add myself in as the fourth person who doubts the historical existance of Jesus. Even if a Jesus did exist the the bible was based on I think the story has been so exagerated and added to that describe a character that is mostly fictional.Saurian200https://www.blogger.com/profile/00670029633130988783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30477682066389137842007-03-23T19:34:00.000-05:002007-03-23T19:34:00.000-05:00For the record, Dan, you're once again misusing wo...For the record, Dan, you're once again misusing words.<BR/><BR/>Theist does not mean "God". Theist means "God <I>belief</I>", a belief in a god. There's a difference there, Dan. You claim it means the actual entity (which you also cannot properly define), the actual definition says it's believe <I>in</I> said entity.<BR/><BR/>From Webster:<BR/><BR/>Main Entry: the·ism <BR/>Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m<BR/>Function: noun<BR/>: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world<BR/><BR/>Therefore, atheist does not mean "No god", it means "No god <I>belief</I>". A big difference, one that nulls your whole "prove it or shutup" stance...or would, if you weren't so incredibly wrong on where the burden of proof actually lies.<BR/><BR/>Also, you're misusing the term asexual. Not completely, but the way you used it in your example was wrong. Asexual does not just mean lacking in sexual organs, it also means somebody lacking in a sex drive, ie, somebody with absolutly no interest in sex. I personally know one, and there's support communities for them, so they do exist. Yes, he does have a fully functional penis (and the asexual girls aren't lacking in their particular organs, either)<BR/><BR/>I would recommend you start making sure your basic facts are correct before you start using them to construct arguments. Your word definitions are incorrect, your word <I>usage</I> is incorrect, your idea's on the basics behind logic and fallacies are incorrect, etc.<BR/><BR/>Also, your claim that Tracie is the only one in the entire world who doesn't believe Jesus Christ actually existed, as represented in the bible, is nothing but hyperbole. You've just been given a challenge to prove his existence, so evidently there's somebody else who doesn't believe. I am the third. I'm sure there's at least a fourth somewhere in this forum. <BR/><BR/>I've seen the claims that there are 56,000 documents that mention Jesus before, but I've also seen it shot down before, when it was pointed out that that number is a) highly exaggerated and b) includes many, many documents through the ages that reference other documents as proof of Jesus. For example, if there was a document (hypothetically, lets say a town census of some kind) and it had the name Jesus on it, and 4 people throughout the ages reference this document when they talk of Jesus to prove the Jesus they are talking about existed, then there's still only one document that can be used to show Jesus existed. However, whoever it was that came up with the number 56,000 would have counted <I>five</I> documents. See the problem? Four of those aren't original, and if the hypothetical census ended up being a forgery or was talking about some <I>other</I> Jesus, then all of them need to be discarded, or at least not counted as evidence of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Think of it another way. Imagine if a scientist publishes a paper called "Gravity Fairies and You: How those cute little critters keep you and I planted on the Earth" (pardon the borrow, Tracie). Imagine if this paper talks about how he somehow found evidence that gravity fairies cause gravity. Now imagine if 10 people read this paper and then, when writing something of their own, they mention this paper and the gravity fairies. Now imagine Newton comes along and disproves the fairies, proving the original paper wrong. There are 11 documents out there that mention the gravity fairies, but now all 11 of them are wrong, because the <I>original</I> was wrong. So it would be wrong to say that there are 11 documents showing gravity fairies existed, when there's only one original, and the other 10 rely on the validity of the original to stay accurate. There's no need to limit it to 10, either, it could have been any number of people who included mention of the fairies and who ended up being wrong. 55,999, for instance. 56,000 documents mentioning gravity fairies is a lot, but when the validity of the original paper (or the original couple papers) are called into question, or cannot be shown to be accurate at all, then there are 56,000 documents who's accuracy is either wrong or still not proven to be true. Just because there are a lot of documents that mention the fairies does not make them really exist. ...This example is a bit childish, but given Dan's ability to easily read over something that shows an argument of his to be wrong or lacking in substance, I think speaking in childish language and using simple to understand examples may help Dan to understand a little more.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I have not done as much biblical research as some of the others in this forum, so I'll leave it to others to tell me if I'm on the right track with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3544105747372187222007-03-23T18:14:00.000-05:002007-03-23T18:14:00.000-05:00Dear Dan,Oh, boy, where do I start? I could go o...Dear Dan,<BR/><BR/>Oh, boy, where do I start? I could go on and on, but I will stick to the most blatant. <BR/><BR/>Your misuse of my native tongue is disgusting. When someone shows you something, he REVEALS it, not REVILES it! Can you once, just once, understand how pathetically IGNORANT you sound when you make a mistake like that? I know who you are, Dan, I know what you look like. So do MILLIONS of other people ALL OVER THIS PLANET. And EVERYONE of us is laughing at you! Reread the last statement of your 4:50 PM 23 March post. <BR/><BR/>Because you used the wrong word you made a statement that is at once hilarious and terribly sad. If you don't understand, get a sixth grader to show you what I'm talking about. But that is what I have come to expect from you, so I'll just laugh with everyone else. <BR/><BR/>More to the point, it's do or die time, Danny Boy. YOU came to this site, UNINVITED, spouting the usual claptrap of Christianity. Well, Dan, I don't give a rat's ass what branch you served in, I'm a vet and I'm calling your bluff. Man to Man, Dan. A man, Dan, backs his words or he doesn't speak. I am a man, Dan, are you? <BR/><BR/>As you so weirdly pointed out to Tracie, we know you have a penis, but that doesn't make you a man, Dan. I know you're a southerner, Dan, so you live by the code that when a man is challenged, he doesn't back down. So here it is, Dan: <BR/><BR/>I hereby proclaim to THE WORLD, not just you, Dan, old sod, but TO THE WORLD that if you can give me one (1) (That's just one, Dan) piece of verifiable evidence that Jesus existed, I will personally drive my motorcycle right down there to Austin and kiss your ass on live TV. I vow, I swear, I affirm, I stake my life on this statement, Dan. <BR/><BR/>I am a man of my word, Dan. I challenge you to take me up on it. I mean it, Dan. Take me up on it or be forever branded a chickens**t bulls**ter who, when given the chance to do the ONE THING NO ONE ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY COULD DO, WUSSED OUT. Why can I make such a challenge, Dan? Figure it out. <BR/><BR/>If you do not take me up on this challenge, if you use the chickens**t bulls**t excuse 'I don't have to prove anything,' you know as a southerner I will forever be entitled to no longer address you as Dan, but as Chickens**t Bulls**ter Dan. <BR/><BR/>You have ceased to be amusing, Dan, it is time to put up or shut up. So, Dan, either do this, or shut the hell up, ONCE AND FOR ALL. <BR/><BR/>Your entire premise (look the word up, Dan) rests on Jesus' existence. You have said it's all about faith, and then you make the statement that YOU CAN PROVE JESUS EXISTED. ("He did exist provable through either public or private records.") YOU made that statement, Dan, and every person reading this post knows that. So, I'm challenging you to do it, Dan. Formally, as one man challenges another man. <BR/><BR/>Once more, Dan, and I'll make it as simple as possible: Dan said on 23 March, 2007 that he can prove Jesus existed. I, Otto, have challenged him in front of THE WORLD to do so. Got it? I sure hope so because, Dan, 'CB Dan' is one stupid moniker to be saddled with.<BR/> <BR/>I, Otto, (Ottovstar net name) have made my statement this day, 23 March, 2007. Do I drive to Austin to buss your butt, or do I hereafter call you CB Dan?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7327043728426583802007-03-23T17:16:00.000-05:002007-03-23T17:16:00.000-05:00When God "reviles" himself to us? Is that a Freudi...When God "reviles" himself to us? Is that a Freudian slip?<BR/><BR/>If God ever did reveal (I assume that's the word you meant) himself to us, rather than bow to him I suspect I'd demand an apology not only for all of the innocent victims of evil in the world whom he's allowed to suffer, but also for relying on uneducated, dishonest, and incoherent pinheads who don't even understand the things they claim to believe in to act as his spokesmen.<BR/><BR/>Dan, we have explained the nature of burden of proof to you repeatedly. If you are too stupid to get it after all this time, then please do us all a favor and <I>go away</I>. We are not spinning the subject, you are. Our definition of burden of proof is accurate, yours is distorted. One more time, for the retarded children in the class:<BR/><BR/>Believers claim a god exists.<BR/>We ask for evidence.<BR/>We either get none, or "evidence" so poor it doesn't merit the name.<BR/>We declare ourselves atheists.<BR/><BR/>That's how it works. The existence of your God is no more a given than the existence of Zeus. We are under no obligation to believe as you do unless you make your case. It's not our job to prove to you your invisible friend doesn't exist, it's your job to prove to us he does. Just like a person who claimed invisible gnomes live in his backyard; it's up to him to prove his claim, not up to those who disbelieve him to prove he's wrong.<BR/><BR/>If you're TOO STUPID TO GET THAT, then GET LOST.<BR/><BR/>And please stop saying you love me. Of all the lies you tell, that's the most egregiously self-serving.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72096387986648366992007-03-23T16:50:00.000-05:002007-03-23T16:50:00.000-05:00There is no frustration on my part, I am concerned...There is no frustration on my part, I am concerned for the people that follow your AE program but I understand more now in that these are people that do not wish to find truth but to eat dinner with and fellowship with common like minded people. I am still saddened by your denial of what you are doing here. You are all denying that your arguments are based on no evidence so therefore God does not exist. <BR/>Let’s get to the root of the matter, no pun intended. The root word of “A” means no or without as in abyss - without bottom; achromatic - without color; anhydrous - without water. Other examples asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism <BR/>This can not be denied even by your pragmatism.<BR/><BR/>Theist or Greek word theos means God we can all agree. You are all claiming by calling yourselves atheists that there is “NO GOD” the burden of proof is on you and your name. In Greek you would be called atheos Defend your label or call yourselves something else. Atheist means NO GOD no matter what you may think it means, that is what it means. You can not rewrite something to fit your viewpoint, your entire premises is a fallacy and you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that your claim is to be true or you are unable to clarify your claim. You are all lost in a delusion that the word means something else. If I called myself asexual and I have a penis, I would be deceiving myself. The burden of proof isn’t on Christians (followers of Jesus) there is no question that we follow Jesus, it is obvious. The burden of proof is on the atheist (NO GOD) the claim in question. You can spin it all you want, I understand your positions, but you owe your fans an explanation of this, after all your show is called AE correct?<BR/><BR/>I am a follower of Christ or I am a Christian. I don’t think there is anyone on this earth that doesn’t believe this man existed besides you Tracie. He did exist provable through either public or private records. He is not a figment, he is real and we are followers of him. My label is a true statement. Yours is a fallacy.<BR/><BR/>God will be my judge to see if I stepped out of line I am OK with that. Your name calling has never had an effect on me Martin or anyone else, be sure of that. Because my love for you, as well as for all of you, still exists. I still am concerned for you all. All I ask is are you sure what you are claiming isn’t false and when it is proven to be false will you get on your knees and repent for the deceit you have portrayed here all this time, or will you be too proud to bow to God after he reviles himself to you again? <BR/><BR/>For Him,<BR/>DanD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65666508730828617002007-03-23T14:24:00.000-05:002007-03-23T14:24:00.000-05:001. Person A(Dan) makes claim X. 2. Person B(Martin...<I>1. Person A(Dan) makes claim X. <BR/>2. Person B(Martin) makes an attack on person A(Dan). <BR/>3. Therefore A’s(Dan's) claim is false.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong again, chump! Try this one.<BR/><BR/><I>1. Person A (Dan) makes claim X.<BR/>2. Person B (Martin)--in addition to persons C, D, E, etc--points out errors and fallacies in person A's claim.<BR/>3. Therefore A's (Dan's) claim is false.<BR/>4. Person A (Dan) repeats refuted claims.<BR/>5. Person B (Martin)--as well as persons C, D, E, etc--points out stupidity of person A.</I><BR/><BR/>There, I think <I>that's</I> a bit more accurate an account of what's been going on here.<BR/><BR/>An ad hominem fallacy is made when a person brings up an irrelevant factor about someone in an attempt to discredit their views. This is what Dan did when he brought up Dr. Laboissiere's gaming hobby, which had nothing to do with his expertise on logic.<BR/><BR/>This is <I>not</I> the same thing as pointing out when someone is, in fact, being plain stupid. Make a false claim or a lousy argument, and it's hardly irrelevant to say that it reflects stupidity on the arguer's part. I fully fess up to pointing out Dan's stupidity in multiple posts. If Dan doesn't wish to be attacked, he should consider refraining from stupid behavior.<BR/><BR/>I have, of course, been careful to point out where Dan has been in error factually each time I've replied to his claims. Stephen, Tracie, and others have even been more detailed than I have in this. Dan's replies have been growing less and less coherent and more desperate sounding each time. His most recent post seems to be an extended exercise in "Same to you and more of it!" which argues for a growing frustration.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79069642077469864702007-03-23T08:38:00.000-05:002007-03-23T08:38:00.000-05:00Sorry to dominate the forum like this overnight—bu...Sorry to dominate the forum like this overnight—but your post was interesting.<BR/><BR/>I thought more and more about about anology of telling the blind man to walk off the cliff. Here’s what I wondered:<BR/><BR/>I said I gave totally honest information to people--and I don't hold any info I'm aware of back. I am not lying to them regarding what I see or do not see with regard to belief in god. So, in your analogy, you had me lying to the man—purposefully. That is not, however, an accurate reflection of what I described that I am doing. I am not responsible for how people interpret data--offered as fully disclosed information.<BR/><BR/>So, the anology would go something like this—if it was to reflect our actual situation:<BR/><BR/>A blind man comes up to me, headed West. He says, “Is the road continuing on Westward for awhile?” I take a good, hard look West, and see nothing but miles of road, and say, “Yes, as far as I can see, it goes on for Miles in the direction you are heading.”<BR/><BR/>The man walks off with his cane.<BR/><BR/>You come along freaked out that he’s about to walk over a cliff—telling me I’ve sent him to his death. I look again, but don’t see anything but road. I say to you, “Where do you see a cliff?”<BR/><BR/>You say, “I read that there is a cliff over there.” I reply, “But look, there’s no cliff.” And the blind man continues walking off.<BR/><BR/>I ask you, “Are you sure you and I are defining “cliff” the same way? I don’t see any cliff. What are you calling a cliff?” You say, “Cliffs are the supernatural result of rejection by light and love I read about.” I say, “Oh OK—I thought you meant a big crevice that people fall into. We’re good then. At least the ‘cliff’ presents no real danger to the blind man.”<BR/><BR/>Now, if there is some awful result of the blind man heading West that a supernatural entity shrouded in a veil of seeming nonexistence of a cliff, simply because this being prefers guessing games rather than verifiable truth--I can honestly say I don't feel responsible for that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com