Feed on Posts or Comments 19 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 03 May 2012 12:29 am

The Love of Christ

It is so strange how the love of Christ expresses itself:

NC Pastor Sean Harris Suggests Parents Beat The Gay Out Of Their Children

See also: The Lesson of Dan Savage and Sean Harris

And:

121 Responses to “The Love of Christ”

  1. on 03 May 2012 at 3:02 am 1.Anonymous said …

    More love

    http://i.imgur.com/TZXJP.png

  2. on 03 May 2012 at 3:55 am 2.DPK said …

    Why are we always shocked and surprised when deluded, ignorant, crazy people act out in deluded, ignorant, and crazy fashion? Really not a surprise to see the undertow of hatred that flows just beneath the surface of most religious faith. I mean, come on, the whole concept of any religious faith is that the most powerful being in the entire universe is MY friend, and everyone who doesn’t think so is going to hell. What do you expect from people with that worldview?

  3. on 03 May 2012 at 4:00 am 3.Anonymous said …

    Love thy neighbor

    http://m.quickmeme.com/meme/3p3c86/

  4. on 03 May 2012 at 2:05 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    The theist responses to the video are hilarious, and predictable.

    “He’s not a true Christian”, “That’s not what Christ taught”, “…context”, “That’s old testament and doesn’t apply”, “He’s from the south”, and so on. There was even a “Christ came and died for us” comment, but how that justified the above wasn’t clear.

    As usual, it’s the pick-and-choose that so often accompanies whatever someone needs to argue in order to maintain their belief in “Christianity” and the three-in-one imaginary friend in the sky.

  5. on 03 May 2012 at 8:12 pm 5.Fed Up With Faith said …

    Check out my new blog everything about religions failings http://fedupwithfaith.blog.com/

  6. on 03 May 2012 at 11:00 pm 6.Biff said …

    “He’s not a true Christian”, “That’s not what Christ taught”, “…context”,

    Much like atheist do we confronted with pol pot, Lenin and Stalin right anonymous?

    Its really funny to catch atheists in their own web of hypocrisy.

    I didn’t watch the video, no time but I’m sure it is out of context. A typical atheist maneuver.

    Homosexuals need psychological counseling and thousands upon thousands are getting it every day on their free-will. They are changed by the power of Christ and want out. Unfortunately the loud lobbyist groups attack them and threaten them when they do so. Its sad the group that calls for tolerance will not be tolerant.

  7. on 03 May 2012 at 11:23 pm 7.Lou (DFW) said …

    6.Biff, aka Hor, said …

    “He’s not a true Christian”, “That’s not what Christ taught”, “…context”,

    “Much like atheist[s] do [when] confronted with [P]ol [P]ot, Lenin and Stalin right[,] anonymous?”

    How much drinking in “The Basement” did you do before composing this comment?

    Its [sic] really funny to catch atheists in their own web of hypocrisy.”

    You obviously don’t understand the definition of hypocrisy.

    “I didn’t watch the video, [sic] no time [sic] (must get back to Broadway In The Basement) but I’m sure it is out of context [-] [a] typical atheist maneuver.”

    What’s “typical atheist maneuver?”

    “Homosexuals need psychological counseling and thousands upon thousands are getting it every day on their free-will. They are changed by the power of Christ and want out.”

    Then why do they “need psychological counseling?” Please provide evidence that “thousands upon thousands are getting it every day.”

    “Unfortunately the loud lobbyist groups attack them and threaten them when they do so.”

    Unless you provide evidence of that, it confirms that you’re still a pathological liar, Hor.

    “Its [sic] sad the group that calls for tolerance will not be tolerant.”

    Show us which group, and show us where they call for tolerance. Until you do, your lies are meaningless.

  8. on 04 May 2012 at 1:04 am 8.Anonymous said …

    Notice that Hor (Biff) doesn’t address the argument nor the subject of this blog entry. Instead he tries to deflect the argument by making accusations and telling lies.

    Hor freely admits he hasn’t even seen the video, yet he chooses to verbally attack other people simply on account of what he wants to believe, exactly in the same way that he bases his delusional belief in sky daddy on zero evidence and a desperate desire to avoid facing reality.

    By siding with Sean Harris, it would seem that Hor (Biff) agrees that “cracking wrists” is an appropriate bible-based Christian response to a persons sexual identity. Weird, though, because in Hor’s world that identity would be set in advance by his imaginary friend. Perhaps Hor believes that his god created the LBGT community precisely so that the faithful would have someone to stone, much as they did in the bronze age from where these ideals actually come from.

    Thank you, “Biff”, for clearly demonstrating the violent and intolerant nature of “True” Christians.

  9. on 04 May 2012 at 3:10 am 9.Prime said …

    Could someone (Biff) please establish for me that this “free will” he’s talking about actually exists?

    Scientists and philosophers are starting to agree that it is an illusion. That raises the obvious question of who has the burden of proof here, since we can no longer couch that idea in self-apparence (i.e. delusion) land.

    Seems to me that you theists types, whose religions depend not only on the unestablishable existence of God, need to also get to cracking to prove that free will exists too (of course, this is an obviously abstract notion, so I mean by that that you need to establish that free will is coherent and that human minds actually possess it).

  10. on 04 May 2012 at 3:15 am 10.Doug Fo said …

    If God created everything, and knows everything that could happen based on the way he created everything…that absolutely positively and without a doubt makes free will an impossibility.

    Theists are just aren’t willing to follow the implications of their assertions and that they are self contradictory.

  11. on 04 May 2012 at 3:27 am 11.Prime said …

    Even if we punt that obvious discrepancy and play some epistemic distance card, it appears we don’t have free will anyway. Sam Harris indicates that not only is the idea incorrect, it’s incoherent (and thus impossible in any conceivable scenario). He backs that up, of course, with good argumentation and a basis in neuroscientific research.

  12. on 04 May 2012 at 5:06 am 12.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Come on Prime. You shoud know better. Science and religion are exaclty bedfellows to the delusional. :-D

  13. on 04 May 2012 at 5:08 am 13.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Correction: AREN’T bedfellows (typing from cell phone).

  14. on 04 May 2012 at 8:50 am 14.Severin said …

    6 Biff
    “Much like atheist do we confronted with pol pot, Lenin and Stalin right anonymous?”

    Maybe the a.m. gentlemen were atheists (Hitler was not, Saddam Hussein was not, South American dictators, like Pinochet, were not,…), BUT their taking power was possible ONLY with people who was brainwashed by religions.
    THEY ALL WERE SUPPORTED AND HELPED TO GET POWER BY IGNORANT RELIGIOUS MASSES (except, maybe in some cases when the USA brought some of them to power by force, or in political games)!

    Could a Lenin happen in Sweden, Holland, UK, Slovenia, France …?
    I doubt it.

    Could a Lenin occur in the USA?
    Mmm, I wonder!
    Remember McCarthy?!

  15. on 04 May 2012 at 1:00 pm 15.Ben said …

    “Unfortunately the loud lobbyist groups attack them and threaten them when they do so”

    This is especially true of college campuses. Out of one side of their mouth they are love, out of the other side they are a cult and demand allegiance. Low numbers I can only guess mean less power.

  16. on 04 May 2012 at 1:37 pm 16.Lou(DFW) said …

    15.Ben said …

    “Unfortunately the loud lobbyist groups attack them and threaten them when they do so”

    “This is especially true of college campuses. Out of one side of their mouth they are love, out of the other side they are a cult and demand allegiance.”

    Here’s another sock puppet endorsing an unsubstantiated claim.

    ” Low numbers I can only guess mean less power.”

    What you can guess is usually incorrect, and it’s definitely irrelevant.

  17. on 04 May 2012 at 4:13 pm 17.DPK said …

    Article in today’s paper about our local Catholic Diocese that commissioned a $25,000 study to find out why attendance at church is dwindling.
    To quote Bishop Gallante:

    “The old fear factor approach — come to church or go to hell — will not work in today’s world, Galante said.

    Father Terry Odien, a priest in residence at Christ Our Light church in Cherry Hill, said he agrees with Galante… “Fear is not working, but how do you pass on the faith today? How do you unpack the gospel for what people will hear on Sunday?” Odien wondered. “We’ll really need to study this, and work on finding out what people are looking for (at church).”

    Oh my goodness… terrifying people isn’t working anymore? People are wising up? Bad news for the churches!

  18. on 04 May 2012 at 4:36 pm 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    17.DPK said …

    “Oh my goodness… terrifying people isn’t working anymore? People are wising up? Bad news for the churches!”

    Maybe they’re terrified about their children being molested.

  19. on 04 May 2012 at 4:51 pm 19.DPK said …

    or that……………(vbg)

  20. on 04 May 2012 at 4:57 pm 20.DPK said …

    How do we “unpack the gospel” indeed?
    The need a spin doctor. I hear Newt Gingrich is available.

    Wasn’t there one of the more “public figure” atheists who offered to debate any christian minister in his own church and he wouldn’t say a single word of his own… he would ONLY read passages from the bible?
    As far as I know, no one ever took him up on the offer. Funny… they won’t even debate when their own holy book is the only evidence allowed.

  21. on 04 May 2012 at 5:11 pm 21.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.DPK said …

    “or that……………(vbg)”

    Or their (tax-free to the church) money spent on private jets and trophy wives.

    Oh yea, then there’s the hush money for the homosexual affairs.

  22. on 04 May 2012 at 10:50 pm 22.Ben said …

    “Oh my goodness… terrifying people isn’t working anymore? People are wising up?”

    Good call Lou. I agree 100%. I have seen a number of your posts and this is the 1st I have seen that makes sense. Good job! Stay away from these man made religions that offer nothing.

    I guess our difference is I don’t hate them or think I need to get militant. I feel sorry for them.

  23. on 04 May 2012 at 11:49 pm 23.Suh said …

    Everyone really should watch the video attached to this thread. The humorous approach of the argument was so thick I literally laughed out loud. It was not meant to be humorous.

    “Now here is Marshal Brain’s argument. Spanking a child is wrong. This is done only by the fundamentalist. If you are a casual christian you naturally do not spank your children. Therefore by calling yourself Christian you are enabling child abuse.

    Where can one begin to address all the fallacies and insanity associated with such a position? Not enough time. This is a group that lives by science? They are suppose to be rational?

    Can we carry it a step further. If you support Atheism you support Gulags? You support Atheism you support the violation of human rights, abortion of female children? In Marshall’s voice, “Please consider the consequences of your decision and rationally reject the horrors of such a belief.

    What a looney tune.

    Yes Lou for your benefit, I am a Hor.

  24. on 05 May 2012 at 12:28 am 24.Prime said …

    Suh, you might be as fallacious as Hor and, like him, lack the ability to comprehend what you’re looking at and lack the ability to draw valid analogies, but you’re not a Hor. You can spell and concoct sentences with decent syntax and grammar. I wonder if you’re as stupid as Ben and think Christianity isn’t a man-made religion, just like the rest of them.

    You, like Hor would do, have done a great job of making a straw man out of the video. The video’s argument is “spanking a child is wrong and, even, insane. Fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Christians *support* this behavior. If you happen to be a non-fundamentalist and support this behavior, you’re acting insanely. If you happen to be a non-fundamentalist and do not explicitly support this behavior, you implicitly do support it by supporting Christianity, even though you are sane enough to know better yourself. Thus, by calling yourself a Christian, you are enabling a movement within that religion that engages intentionally and unquestioningly in child abuse.”

    Any intelligent person can see that, which leaves you where, exactly?

    Then you decide to do worse by yourself by drawing a false analogy. Could you be any dimmer? It has been clarified on this website, on this blog, in the comments in this blog, and directly to you in the comments in this blog over and over again that atheism is not a state from which someone can draw inspiration or, more poignantly, (divine, or any other kind of) command to engage in any particular behaviors. That’s why the position is literally synonymous with “freethinking” (look it up; I’m right).

  25. on 05 May 2012 at 3:27 am 25.Anonymous said …

    Suh, let’s see if you have the courage to answer a question rather than make up lies in order to feed your anger.

    In the video above, the point is made about spanking a child “…until it cries genuinely”. How do YOU feel about that? I’m not asking you if your religion calls for it, or if your god calls for it, I’m simply asking you what YOUR position on such action would be?

    Let’s see if you are here for a genuine conversation or you are yet another troll who is here simply and only so that you can spew forth your hatred then run away before you are faced with the challenge of defending your position.

  26. on 05 May 2012 at 3:36 am 26.Anonymous said …

    Well said Prime. Suh won’t get it, because (s)he doesn’t want to get it.
    It drives them nucking futs to not be able to pigeon hole people into a faith based belief system. They just cannot comprehend someone who simply rejects the nonsense they claim to believe without having some other nonsense to take it’s place. It just doesn’t compute that not believing in gods is no different from not believing in flying elephants… it doesn’t have any other baggage attached, and all people who don’t believe in flying elephants do not belong to some aflyingelephantist religion.
    Suh, here’s what you don’t see. Religious tolerance, what you all scream for and demand, enables all kinds of religious wack jobs and extremist to flourish. Yes, moderate Muslims who demand respect and tolerance from those who do not share their faith help enable extremist Muslim fundamentalists who want to kill you, and me. Moderate Christians give validity to fundamentalist nut jobs…. just like non-pedophile priests and bishops who look the other way enable abusers.

  27. on 05 May 2012 at 4:11 am 27.Lou(DFW) said …

    22.Ben-Hor said …

    “Oh my goodness… terrifying people isn’t working anymore? People are wising up?”

    “Good call Lou. I agree 100%. I have seen a number of your posts and this is the 1st I have seen that makes sense. Good job! Stay away from these man made religions that offer nothing.”

    Ben-Hor, you just never can get it right, can you?

  28. on 05 May 2012 at 6:58 am 28.Severin said …

    22 Ben
    “I guess our difference is I don’t hate them or think I need to get militant.”

    Where is your obsession with hate coming from, people?
    From your minds and hearts poisoned with religion?

    I am unable to hate, and unable to recognize whether or not someone hates me (maybe I just don’t want to recognize it, because hate is far of regular feelings), and reading posts of other atheists here I see a lot of irony, sarcasm, mocking, sometimes humorous sometimes not, sometimes I can feel also a little bit of bitterness (who would not be bitter after seeing your idiocies, but what I feel reading them is a SAD bitterness, not wild one that ends in hate), but I never felt hate in any of atheist posts.

    We do not hate you people.

    We are sorry for you.

  29. on 05 May 2012 at 7:11 am 29.Severin said …

    #28
    Correction:
    (… hate is far of MY regular feelings)

  30. on 05 May 2012 at 7:47 am 30.Severin said …

    Ben,

    However, I felt strong hate once during the civil war in my country some 20 years ago.
    The orthodox church in a catholic town, was blown up one night.
    The small church was some 200 m from my home, and when I heard the explosion about 3 a.m., I immediately understood it was the church.

    I could not resist crying and I really hated the people who did it by all my heart.

    Yes, I am an atheist (and not an orthodox Christian by origin).
    I hate injustice, violence, …

  31. on 05 May 2012 at 12:46 pm 31.MegaByte said …

    Anonymous goes to a Red herring as he is apt to do. Suh’s personal opinion on spanking is not relevant to the video’s message.

    Prime goes to the Hor card. Like Lou, Prime is also obsessed with Hor. Bottom line, the video makes false analogies. Even IF for arguments sake, spanking is wrong, Christians then engage in said act, this does not make other Christians enablers.

    Here is a a bit of reality. Nonchristians spank their children. Yes, it is true.

    Now as Suh suggest, will the Atheist here renounce their membership due to the evil members within their ranks? I doubt it.

    As 40 has made clear, the Atheist mind blindly claims Atheist=Guud.

  32. on 05 May 2012 at 1:21 pm 32.Anonymous said …

    LOL – another giveaway that MegaByte=Hor is that he doesn’t know his fallacies from his arse!

  33. on 05 May 2012 at 1:25 pm 33.Lou(DFW) said …

    31.MegaByte said …

    “Prime goes to the Hor card. Like Lou, Prime is also obsessed with Hor. ”

    Nobody is “obsessed with Hor,” regardless of how often you make that false claim. But what’s odd is that you continuously make reference to this alleged “obsession” as if you are somehow trying to defend Hor The Sock Puppeteer.

    “Here is a a bit of reality.”

    Yes, that theists like MB and his ilk NEVER, EVER provide evidence for their imaginary god. That is the one “bit of reality” that is undeniable.

    “Nonchristians spank their children. Yes, it is true.”

    Speaking of a Red Herring.

    “Now as Suh suggest, will the Atheist here renounce their membership due to the evil members within their ranks? I doubt it.”

    Who care what you doubt. First of all, there is no “Atheist [sic]” membership. Second, please show us who the “evil members” are.

    “As 40 has made clear, the Atheist mind blindly claims Atheist=Guud.”

    Of course you would make such an idiotic statement. No matter what 40YA writes, you and one his fluffers will compliment him without substantiating any such claims. But I’ll give you a chance to prove that you aren’t a liar – show us where any atheists here wrote that being an atheist makes one good.

  34. on 05 May 2012 at 2:24 pm 34.40 year Atheist said …

    Recently the minor Atheists roaming the internet have taken to increasing the power to their shields by morphing several new definitions of Atheism. This has been necessary due to the pressure placed upon them to provide evidence and logic to support their worldview and belief system. So the Atheist response has been increasingly in the direction of denying that they have anything which requires evidence and logic, and therefore they have no need to provide it. This is accomplished via the Atheist sliding and slippery definition tactic.

    Atheism has always been knowledge-negative in the sense that it does not produce any knowledge; it merely denies that there can be any knowledge outside of a certain category or type which is favored by the Atheist and Philosophical Materialist. So it is knowledge-eliminativist or knowledge-negative.

    Being knowledge-negative is the primary characteristic of the practice of Skepticism as well, and Atheism is a subset of Skepticism. Skepticism aspires to sitting alongside the stream of knowledge and taking pot shots at knowledge bits and pieces which come along the stream, knowledge quanta which the Skeptic doesn’t care for. But the Skeptic is careful not to actually engage the knowledge stream because that would involve intellectual activities for which he is ill prepared. So Skepticism is merely the assertion that “you cannot know that”, with the reason being, “with any certainty”. Taken to the Skeptical limit, nothing can be known with any certainty (we cannot prove with certainty that we are not all merely simulations in a huge computer program somewhere, and everything in our “reality” is a delusion, so that in fact, nothing exists, even ourselves). Thus, under escalating Skepticism any and all knowledge is deniable, depending upon the value assigned to “certainty”. The Skeptic just sits and chooses which knowledge he likes and which he wants to destroy. This is Asymmetrical Skepticism.

    Nietzsche (the last and only honest Atheist) drove this point home: there are no self-evident, axiomatic truths because they cannot be proved. Ever the intellectual avant garde, he drove the point to its obvious necessary conclusion: rational discourse cannot exist. So he developed his philosophy of Anti-Rationalism, which turned out to be indiscernible from insanity.

    The new Atheist drive toward denialism is merely an internally dishonest version of Nietzsche’s more honest admission. The attempt to rescue themselves from any burden to explain their beliefs has morphed from “there is no god”, to “we have no god theory”, to “we have no god beliefs”, to “we have no beliefs in god/s”, to “we have no beliefs”, depending of course on the particular Atheist involved, and whatever stage of the argument he needs to protect himself from.

    The intent appears to be to become absolutely knowledge-neutral, having no intellectual position betrayed or exposed to the necessity of defending it using actual evidence or logic. Since achieving knowledge-neutrality is rather like balancing a bowling ball on the point of a needle, it fails rather badly under disciplined logical applications of entropy. And this is where the massive Atheist intellectual dishonesty results in massive absurdity.

    Under the new definitions of Atheism, we are expected to accept, with no complaints involving their logical errors, that Atheists (a) have no beliefs which need justification, (b) yet are morally, logically, and intellectually superior, and (c) have a worldview which is based on evidence and logic.

    This viewpoint is achieved through the tactic of Asymmetrical Skepticism, which allows the Atheist to refuse all undesired knowledge, regardless of its logic or even its material evidence, using the “certainty” requirement. For his own position however, the Skepticism evaporates and becomes an obtuse soup of credulous acceptance of ideas which are self-evidently absurd and totally without evidence or logic in their support. This is not a problem for the Atheist. The self-evident axioms are different for Atheists, who have developed their own set of “truths” in the vacuum left by the death of absolute First Principles. They presuppose that their innate and tautological personal correctness makes their every thought logical with no need for the standards of disciplined logic. The design of morality locally and under their own moral authority allows them to be completely moral at all times and in all situations, no matter what they do. They can and will decide what sort of evidence each party in a discussion is required to present (HINT: it’s not themselves). They can and will decide where “reality” stops, and it is not a rational conclusion, it is an ideological, Philosophical Materialist decision which requires no evidence to back it up.

    And they are never, ever, skeptical of their own mental processes or conclusions.

    Having adopted the Nietzschean Asymmetrical Skepticism, these Atheists have inadvertently (or maybe not) engaged reality from the Anti-Rational standpoint. And because Anti-Rationalism, when applied to logical assertions, is indiscernible from insanity, discussions with the anti-rational becomes rife with logical failures, failures which the anti-rational don’t care one whit about, because they don’t apply under Anti-Rationalism. Logic and Anti-rationalism are like matter and anti-matter in that they cannot coexist non-destructively.

    This is where honesty comes into play. Honesty has to be measured against a standard. The standard for honesty is consistency in a person’s behavior as measured against the person’s stated worldview standards. It presumes that a person has a set of First Principles which are consistent with reality, meaning that they are not internally contradictory, or otherwise illogical or irrational.

    With Anti-Rationalists, there is no admitted position, certainly no consistent position, against which to measure the Anti-Rationalist’s behavior – except to observe, yes, that behavior is not rational, so it fits the Anti-Rationalist worldview.

    But under traditional Rationalist understandings of honesty, irrational behavior in the pursuit of worldviews which are merely convenient is not honest; it is contrived out of logical fallacies which the protagonist cannot and will not defend. Persistent irrationality equates to intellectual dishonesty, when viewed under Rationalism.

    Dishonesty also is apparent when there is a disparate application of rules, insisting on impossible rules for the opposition while allowing no rules for oneself. Requiring material proof for the existence of a non-material entity (the infamous Atheist Category Error) on the one hand, while accepting no requirements for providing evidence or logic for the Atheist position (by using the Orwellian tactic of changing the definition of the position as required to attempt to avoid responsibility) are blatant intellectual dishonesties and rational failures, at least when viewed under Rationalist principles. Under Anti-Rationalism, they must seem just fine.

    Under Nietzsche’s Asymmetrical Skepticism, it was deemed rational to eliminate the foundations of rational thought and thus become an Anti-Rationalist. The obvious internal contradiction was acceptable, because there no longer existed any Principle of Non-Contradiction; that principle was lost to Asymmetrical Skepticism. Coherence was/is no longer a requirement for proper thinking, and is used only when convenient. Otherwise, Anti-Coherence prevails in Anti-Rationalism. In fact Anti-Coherence is a proper tactic in the ascent of those engaged in the Will To Power; Nietzsche’s disciple, Saul Alinsky, attested to that, half a century after Nietzsche’s death, a death only after a final decade of insanity and irrationality. Again, it turns out that Anti-Rationality when taken seriously is indiscernible from insanity.

    And that is the intellectual state of the casual internet Atheist. He is caught declaring that his Anti-Rational assertions are, in fact, rational, and further he has no burden to show any logic or evidence in their support, nor need he admit to the internal contradiction as a failure. If the Anti-Rational Atheist actually believes that, then he behaving according to his worldview, and is irrational by definition. If he doesn’t believe that, then he is maximally dishonest and is using it as an excuse, an intellectual dodge. Either way, his arguments are failures when judged under Rationalist principles of disciplined logical analysis. Further, the Atheist’s objection – just more denialism, actually – to that failure is inconsequential, being only an artifact of his Anti-Rational affliction. In fact, the Atheist’s objection is absurd, a concept that is only meaningful under Rationalism.

    The Atheist claim to be based on logic and evidence is false, and demonstrably so. Under the new Anti-Rationalist push to deny the need to even argue their position, they tacitly admit to the falsity of that position. They have, in essence, defaulted the high ground of rationality, logic and evidence to the Rationalists, who are not Atheists.

  35. on 05 May 2012 at 2:35 pm 35.alex said …

    34.40 year Atheist said …

    plonk. waste of internet ink.

  36. on 05 May 2012 at 2:43 pm 36.Anonymous said …

    40YFallacy said… nothing of value.

  37. on 05 May 2012 at 2:51 pm 37.Anonymous said …

    Recently the minor — FAIL – fallacy, attempt to poison the well

    Atheists — FAIL – atheists – lack of knowledge of the subject and attempt at a redefinition

    roaming the internet have taken to increasing the power to their shields by morphing several new definitions of Atheism. — FAIL – strawman and a lie (Stan special)

    This has been necessary — FAIL – strawman and red-herring and attempt to shift the burden of proof

    due to the pressure placed upon them — FAIL – unsupported assertion / strawman / lie

    to provide evidence and logic to support their worldview and belief system. — FAIL – strawman / bare-faced lie

    So the Atheist response — FAIL – atheist

    has been increasingly in the direction of denying that they have anything which requires evidence and logic, and therefore they have no need to provide it. — FAIL – strawman / attempt to shift the burden of proof

    Really Stan, can you not possibly complete even a paragraph without resorting to logical fallacies?

  38. on 05 May 2012 at 5:34 pm 38.Prime said …

    My appreciation for the conversations that happen on these comment threads has increased about 500% ever since I realized that 40Y isn’t even worth reading. On top of everything else he’s screwing up, he puts so much of it that it’s a waste of time to try to deal with it all: a perfect example of blinding by bullshit.

  39. on 05 May 2012 at 8:00 pm 39.A said …

    40year

    I appreciated much of your post but this stands out.

    “Under the new definitions of Atheism, we are expected to accept, with no complaints involving their logical errors, that Atheists (a) have no beliefs which need justification, (b) yet are morally, logically, and intellectually superior, and (c) have a worldview which is based on evidence and logic.”

    I respect the few atheists like Nietzsche that admit the truth of their unbelief. The new atheists are intellectual wimps spending their time attacking others.

    After your post I figured you should of given the atheists here a kiss before dropping this bomb on them.

  40. on 05 May 2012 at 10:01 pm 40.Prime said …

    You guys really can’t get your heads around the notion that “atheist” isn’t really something someone can be, can you?

    It’s like… hmm… what’s the word for the group of people who don’t run the hurdles?

    THIS drivel, though, is exactly why Sam Harris is right in arguing that the word atheist shouldn’t really even exist. It’s most unfortunate that in this case we’ve decided to name someone by something they are not instead of by something they are.

  41. on 05 May 2012 at 10:19 pm 41.DPK said …

    Told ya.. They can’t understand anything that doesn’t fit their dogma.
    A person who does not live in a hole in the ground? An a-hole.
    A person who does not make grocery list? An a-lister.
    A person who does not have acne scars on their face? An a-pocalyst
    Hahaha.
    This could be fun.

  42. on 05 May 2012 at 10:26 pm 42.alex said …

    …..“atheist” isn’t really something someone can be, can you?

    But “atheist” is most descriptive, no? Can substitute free or independent thinker, but I’m probably more of a cynic. My default setting is: “I don’t believe it.”, but doesn’t mean I can’t be convinced. Let’s see, a dead end Neanderthal Branch/Ancestor or Creationism. Damn fossils and dna are mighty compelling, but da B-I-B-L-E sez, Creationism is the Truth, therefore I believe.

  43. on 05 May 2012 at 11:30 pm 43.Prime said …

    42.alex said …

    “But “atheist” is most descriptive, no?”

    In a cultural sense, yes, but what, really, is it describing about someone?

    The only reason it has cultural salience is because of the staggering preponderance of people that still believe in fairy tales that shouldn’t have survived the Enlightenment, whatever their social utility before that. If religion had been marginalized like astrology has (which is still popular and has lots of people who believe in it!) by the Enlightenment, would we bother with the word “atheist” to describe people who don’t buy into that rubbish? Of course we wouldn’t.

  44. on 05 May 2012 at 11:47 pm 44.DPK said …

    Exactly Prime! We don’t have a word to describe people who don’t believe in alchemy, or voodoo, or even a name for people that don’t believe in ghosts and goblins. But it is an endless source of irritation for deluded idiots like Stanley (40yr) and his sock puppet “A” (I wonder if “a” also stands for “astrophysicist?”) who insists that if you can’t prove something wrong, it therefore is right.

  45. on 05 May 2012 at 11:55 pm 45.Lou said …

    Taken to the Skeptical limit, nothing can be known with any certainty (we cannot prove with certainty that we are not all merely simulations in a huge computer program somewhere, and everything in our “reality” is a delusion, so that in fact, nothing exists, even ourselves)….The Skeptic just sits and chooses which knowledge he likes and which he wants to destroy. This is Asymmetrical Skepticism.”

    40ya that is atheism perfectly defined. They offer nothing to the conversation other than ad hominem attacks. They refuse to take a position on anything outside of attacking theists. They hope to get others to reveal their position in order to have a yuck fest. It is truly a pathetic bunch. Without hate they could not survive.

  46. on 06 May 2012 at 12:32 am 46.DPK said …

    “Taken to the Skeptical limit, nothing can be known with any certainty.”

    True enough, but there is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. I take it on faith that if I drop a bowling ball on your foot, gravity will cause it to fall. You take it on faith that your god answers prayers and loves you. But if you pray for him to suspend the bowling ball in mid air, and I drop it… which one of us will have our faith confirmed?

    “They refuse to take a position on anything outside of attacking theists.”
    This is an outright lie. We do take a position… we do not accept that your imaginary god exists. What more do you “want” us to take a position on? We don’t have any other common ground. Some of us are liberal, some are conservative, some are educated, others not so much. Some of us can write eloquently, others, (like me) struggle to make themselves clear. The ONLY thing what you define as atheists have in common is a lack of belief in magical beings. Curiously, this is the only thing that YOU never address… evidence that any of the crazy ass claims you make about the very nature of reality are actually in any way true. We don’t need to “take a position” on the big bang, evolution, gay marriage, beating your kids, or any of the other endless diversions you continually try to bring up to draw attention away from the fact that you have no actual reason to believe any of the stuff you say is true, actually is. Other than the fact that you want it to be because you are terrified to die and think you should be entitled to another life after you have wasted this one worshiping imaginary beings and believing ancient fairy tales.

  47. on 07 May 2012 at 12:39 pm 47.Doug Fo said …

    The Skeptic decided what he likes and what he wants to destroy?

    Wow, what a complete load.

    A skeptic trys to determine what is true by looking at evidence. If something doesn’t have evidence, it is likely not true, because people lie, engage in wishful thinking, exagerrate, and hallucinate.

    People like 45.Lou are why the cry of “liar” to describe theists comes up from atheists so often. It is because it so accurate, so often.

  48. on 07 May 2012 at 12:42 pm 48.Doug Fo said …

    “They refuse to take a position on anything outside of attacking theists.”

    On the subject of atheism, what other position is possible. If someone was trying to convince you they were a wizard, a real spellcasting wizard and you thought it a complete load of bull, what
    position would you have other than attacking theirs on the subject that you don’t believe in wizards????????

  49. on 07 May 2012 at 12:58 pm 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    45.Lou said …

    “They offer nothing to the conversation other than ad hominem attacks. They refuse to take a position on anything outside of attacking theists. They hope to get others to reveal their position in order to have a yuck fest. It is truly a pathetic bunch. Without hate they could not survive.”

    This, as was previously mentioned, is a complete and utter lie – lying is the basis for theism, and the specific means by which theists like Lou attack anyone who doesn’t share their religious delusion. Delusion and lies – what a way to go through life. No wonder they must have an imaginary heaven to look forward to.

  50. on 07 May 2012 at 1:48 pm 50.Doug Fo said …

    “Without hate they cannot survive”

    Not quite right: either of two things would collapse the atheist community within a short period of time:

    1)Real, objective Evidence for the personal God described in one of their holy books

    2)If Adults stop insisting that bronze age fairy tales are true

  51. on 07 May 2012 at 2:45 pm 51.Lou(DFW) said …

    50.Doug Fo said …

    “Without hate they cannot survive”

    “Not quite right: either of two things would collapse the atheist community within a short period of time:

    1)Real, objective Evidence for the personal God described in one of their holy books”

    Those theists know that will NEVER, EVER happen, so they MUST resort to lying or abandon their faith. Being delusional, it must be the former choice. That’s why they lie about atheists.

  52. on 07 May 2012 at 3:40 pm 52.DPK said …

    It is telling to realize what they define as “hate”.
    In short, not agreeing with me and not keeping your mouth shut quietly in the back of the bus, where you belong.

    On the other hand, their attempt to convince people of their own point of view is called “spreading the good word”, or “saving” people. When an atheist is vocal about his views it’s called “hate” and “vile”.

  53. on 07 May 2012 at 3:45 pm 53.Doug Fo said …

    Lou you said:

    “They hope to get others to reveal their position in order to have a yuck fest”

    No. You are incorrect, and likely deliberately so. We ask other to reveal their position because we are very tired of the game of invisible moving goalposts. Take transubstatiation; some theist beleive it, and some don’t. When talking to someone who identifies themself as a theist, if we assume they are the brand of theist that believes in transubstantiation, we would be wrong a fair amount of the time.

  54. on 07 May 2012 at 4:06 pm 54.DPK said …

    transubstantiation:

    One of those “beliefs” that fit the definition of Mark Twain’s “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t so….”
    I have never met anyone who ACTUALLY believes in transubstantiation… including the theists here. At best, Catholics I know have given up, “well, symbolically…” But no, according to church doctrine, NOT symbolically… physically!!
    At least none of the theists here have admitted to it. Which also, comically, demonstrates the point that even theists acknowledge that other theists believe things that are clearly not true. They get upset when we call them delusional, but most believe that others who share facets of their faith are indeed deluded about at least some aspects of it. They are an interesting lot, no?

  55. on 07 May 2012 at 5:29 pm 55.Doug Fo said …

    And even in Church doctrine, the “physically” is in a manner that cannot be measured.

    Seee below:
    ___________________________________________________

    Yes, you are correct that we Catholics do believe that Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist. However, the mistake that you are making is that you are not using the word “substantially” in the sense that the Catholic Church uses it – that is, how it is used in the context of medieval Scholastic / Aristotelian philosophy (i.e., the systematic language in which “Transubstantiation” was dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church in the year 1215 A.D.). In essence, there is a MAJOR difference between “transSUBSTANTiation” and “transFORMation”. In “transFORMAation”, the actual physical properties of a thing are changed into something else. This would include, not only the thing’s shape and size, but the very molecular structure of the thing itself. However, when it comes to the Eucharist, Catholics obviously don’t believe that the little fragment of what is apparently “bread” in the priest’s hand takes on the “form” or “structure” of Jesus Christ – a 6-foot, living and breathing Individual. We also do not believe that, if one placed a Eucharistic host (the wafer of consecrated “bread”) under a microscope that one would be able to see the cells of a Divine Jewish Carpenter, etc.

    No. We do not believe that the form of bread or the form of wine changes at all. Rather, what we believe is that the substance of bread and wine changes into something (Someone) else. And here, “substance” is a specific metaphysical term used in the language of Scholastic / Aristotelian philosophy – the language which was used to define our dogmatic doctrine. And what it refers to is the **essence** of the very thing itself. For example, if I have an ordinary piece of bread, that piece of bread possesses both a physical reality and a metaphysical reality. It is both something I can see, touch, and taste (its physical properties) and it is something that exists as a reality beyond the perception of my senses (its metaphysical reality). For, if I were to leave the room, the bread would still objectively be there. Our Catholic belief is not that the physical properties of bread and wine change. Rather, we specifically teach (as stated in the Catechism sections that you quote from above) that Christ is substantially present “UNDER THE SPECIES of bread and wine”, meaning that the “species” (the “physical properties” also called “accidents” in the language of Aristotelian / Scholastic philosophy) remain the same. And so our senses (sight, taste, touch, etc.) only perceive bread and wine. However, the metaphysical properties of the bread and wine (that is, the substances of the bread and wine) do change in a miraculous act of God which we call “Transubstantiation”. In other words, Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist in a metaphysical sense, whereas the physical “species” (i.e., the physical properties – everything that can be perceived by our senses) of bread and wine remain the same.
    _________________________________________________

    So while they do believe it is phyical, it apparently happens to the “soul” of the bread. Beacause there are metaphysical properties to be account for in crackers(eyeroll)

  56. on 07 May 2012 at 7:18 pm 56.Anonymous said …

    That groaning sound that you hear is the moving of the goal-posts.

    In order to inoculate these silly ideas from examination, it’s necessary to define them in a way that makes them immune from testing or observation.

    For example, how does one demonstrate that “Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist in a metaphysical sense”, and what does that even mean? It’s fluff. It’s an empty post-hoc assertion with the intent of preserving dogma.

  57. on 07 May 2012 at 7:26 pm 57.Doug Fo said …

    It think it is from the school of:

    Throw enough philosophy at an assertion and it will sound like it is right. Thinking about thinking is great, but it doesn’t mean jack crap if it Kant meet with reality.

  58. on 07 May 2012 at 7:48 pm 58.Oh Yeah said …

    For example, how does one demonstrate that “Jesus is truly, wholly, entirely, and substantially present in the Eucharist in a metaphysical sense”

    I dunno, but it probably is similar to the way atheists explain the birth of the first cell with no God, no intelligence, no design and no plan.

    Sheez, kinda think of it transubstantiation sounds more likely.

    Nah, they are both just fairytales.

  59. on 07 May 2012 at 8:02 pm 59.Lou(DFW) said …

    58.Oh Yeah said …

    “I dunno…”

    Obviously.

    “…but it probably is similar to the way atheists explain the birth of the first cell with no God, no intelligence, no design and no plan.”

    Really? Probably? Please show the “atheists” explanation for the birth of the first cell and then compare it for us to transubstantiation. Otherwise your comment it is unsubstantiated.

  60. on 07 May 2012 at 8:03 pm 60.alex said …

    I dunno, but it probably is similar to the way atheists explain gifts under the tree with no Santa, no intelligence, no design and no plan.

    I dunno, but it probably is similar to the way atheists explain $$$ replacing the molar under the pillow with no Tooth Fairy, no intelligence, no design and no plan.

    atheists are so…

  61. on 07 May 2012 at 8:04 pm 61.Lou(DFW) said …

    59.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Otherwise your comment it is unsubstantiated.”

    P.S. THAT “sounds more likely.”

  62. on 07 May 2012 at 8:50 pm 62.Doug Fo said …

    Oh Yeah58, I don’t know the mechanism exactly. However given that “magic man did it” has been proven wrong time and time again with other explanations of unknowns through the history of mankind, I figured it is just as likely to be wrong here as a bowling ball falling to the ground when it is dropped.

    Secondly, why are you so intellectually disingenuous to bring up abogenisis when the conversation was not about it? The subject was moving goalposts.

  63. on 07 May 2012 at 8:52 pm 63.Anonymous said …

    No surprise, the only theist response in days is an attempt to troll the conversation back to Hor’s favorite dead horse.

  64. on 07 May 2012 at 9:02 pm 64.Oh Yeah said …

    “disingenuous to bring up abogenisis when the conversation was not about it?”

    Oh, my fault the conversation had rolled to the Eucharist. My bad.

    Well, OK carry on. If you truly would like to disprove God, feel free to explain how the first cell and its program known as DNA came about by_______________.

    Otherwise keep on patting yourselves on the back over the Eucharist, bread, wine or whatever ecclesiastical act you like to pile on.

  65. on 07 May 2012 at 9:07 pm 65.Doug Fo said …

    Thank you 64Oh Yeah for demonstrating exactly why “moving the goalposts” is something people with no intergrity, like yourself, do. You see there natrual drift of a conversation, and theirs deliberately highjacking…you are guilty of the latter, but it doesn’t matter to you because you’ve demonstrated, again a complete and utter lack of integrity on your part, using apparently another sock puppet, which in and of itself is domonstrated a lack of integrity.

    “Liars for Christ;” you are one of them.

  66. on 07 May 2012 at 10:18 pm 66.Lou(DFW) said …

    64.Oh Yeah said …

    “If you truly would like to disprove God, feel free to explain how the first cell and its program known as DNA came about by_______________. ”

    It doesn’t matter how the first cell arose. Why can’t you theists get it through your thick skulls that Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution, true or not, don’t have a damn thing to do with proving or disproving the existence of god? Having a discussion with you and your ilk is liking having a discussion with a two year old.

  67. on 08 May 2012 at 3:55 am 67.DPK said …

    “God, feel free to explain how the first cell and its program known as DNA came about by_______________.”

    For the sake of argument, let’s say I tell you I have absolutely no idea how the first cell and DNA came about. So what? Is your claim that because I cannot explain it to your satisfaction then therefore it must be magic

    Let’s look at that idea throughout history…

    I have no idea why the sun and the moon rise and set. Therefore____________?
    I have no idea what causes thunder and lightning. Therefore___________?
    I don’t understand why people get sick. Therefore_______________?
    I have no understanding of what causes tides, earthquakes, volcanos, or even seasons. Therefore___________?

    Now please explain to us how your current argument from ignorance is any different from any of those. Oh, that’s right, you can’t because it isn’t.
    Now instead of again trying to shift the burden and ask someone to disprove the magical god YOU claim is real, how about you provide some actual evidence that ANY of the wild claims you make about the nature of reality are in any way actually true. And yeah, “You can’t explain where the first cell came from.” ISN’T evidence, Sherlock. It’s just stupidity.

  68. on 08 May 2012 at 11:24 am 68.Oh Yeah said …

    So what? Is your claim that because I cannot explain (God) to your satisfaction then therefore (He is not real)?

    Looking at your list there, sounds like you need a class in Earth Science.

    Back to the challenge. When you can explain how information and design arose out of chaos, you will have an argument to consider.

  69. on 08 May 2012 at 11:53 am 69.Doug Fo said …

    Yes DPK, exactly “Magic Man Did it” has been proven wrong time and time again when people didn’t understand a natural phenomenon and used it as an explanation. Theists just don’t have enough sense to extend it to the current situation.

  70. on 08 May 2012 at 12:20 pm 70.Biff said …

    Oh,

    What you must identify is this new diminutive tittle. You must be able to hold it in your hand, like a rabbit, in order for it to be factual.

  71. on 08 May 2012 at 12:26 pm 71.Anonymous said …

    Hor’s sock puppet said: “So what? Is your claim that because I cannot explain (God) to your satisfaction then therefore (He is not real)?”

    You haven’t even tried, so stop lying and pretending to argue against points that haven’t been made

    You have not presented one argument that would indicate that you are nothing other than delusional. Hence, until you prove otherwise, yours is nothing other than the ramblings of a sick mind.

  72. on 08 May 2012 at 12:41 pm 72.Anti-Mouse said …

    Lou’s sock puppet said: “So what? Is your claim that because I cannot explain it to your satisfaction then therefore it must be magic?”

    You haven’t even tried, so stop lying and pretending to argue against points that haven’t been made

    You have not presented one argument that would indicate that you are nothing other than delusional. Hence, until you prove otherwise, yours is nothing other than the ramblings of a sick mind.

  73. on 08 May 2012 at 1:04 pm 73.DPK said …

    68.Oh Yeah said …
    So what? Is your claim that because I cannot explain (God) to your satisfaction then therefore (He is not real)?

    No, again you miss the point. I have not asked you to EXPLAIN god… I asked you to demonstrate he exists. We know thunder and lightning and earthquakes and disease and all the other NATURAL phenomena EXIST. They require explanation, and they have historically always been attributed to gods, and have always historically been found to have rational natural explanations.
    Likewise, we know that life exists and we know that it arose and evolved on earth over several billions of years, becoming more and more complex. We do not fully understand the process that began it (but we’re getting close).
    So, I will not ask you to explain your god until you can show me that any such thing actually exists.
    I need a lesson in Earth Science? How big of an idiot ARE you?

  74. on 08 May 2012 at 1:16 pm 74.Anonymous said …

    You know Hor, one of the giveaways about your attempts to derail the conversation is that you take someone’s argument and turn into a playground taunts You do this with fallacies and objections because you simply don’t have the intellectual ability to form your own arguments.

    Sure, it’s a game to you. Yes, you are simply trolling but in the end of the day what you achieve is to make theists in general look as dishonest and disingenuous as you are.

    Keep up the good work, you are making religious people look way more stupid than we could without your help.

  75. on 08 May 2012 at 1:44 pm 75.MegaByte said …

    “You must be able to hold it in your hand, like a rabbit, in order for it to be factual.”

    Biff that was Prime who required that as a condition to prove God’s existence. The unwillingness to understand First Principles is an epidemic.

  76. on 08 May 2012 at 2:16 pm 76.Lou(DFW) said …

    70.Biff said …

    “What you must identify is this new diminutive tittle. You must be able to hold it in your hand, like a rabbit, in order for it to be factual.”

    75.MegaByte said …

    “Biff that was Prime who required that as a condition to prove God’s existence.”

    Once again Hor’s sock-puppets are caught lying. Prime actually wrote:

    “I’d accept physical proof, like how you’d prove you have a rabbit in your hands.”

    Prime DID NOT claim that proof of a rabbit was to hold it in your hand, nor did he claim that for rabbits to “factual,” a rabbit must be able to be held in your hand. As a matter of fact he later wrote:

    “I second Lou(DFW), then, can you hold any process in your hand like a rabbit? For instance, can you hold photosynthesis in your hand like a rabbit? Can you hold the Krebs cycle in your hand like a rabbit? Can you hold gamma decay in your hand like a rabbit?”

    It’s simply incredible that Hor’s sock-puppets will lie about things that are so easily shown to be lies.

  77. on 08 May 2012 at 2:21 pm 77.Doug Fo said …

    “You know Hor, one of the giveaways about your attempts to derail the conversation is that you take someone’s argument and turn into a playground taunts”

    This is pretty constant, I notice when I present something like why it is important to know what a person believes, that isn’t adressed, my example is. When the concept of showing how the historic correlation between theist power and theist controlling others exist, I get an argument on abogenisis. When I demonstrate how “Magic man did it” has always been a lousy way to explain the world, that isn’t adressed, the meta comment about switching the conversation rather than adressing is.

    It is all quite obvious slimy and disgusting behavior demonstrating a complete disregard for honesty.

  78. on 08 May 2012 at 2:44 pm 78.Lou(DFW) said …

    77.Doug Fo said …

    “It is all quite obvious slimy and disgusting behavior demonstrating a complete disregard for honesty.”

    It’s “their” m.o. Will “they” take the bait I left in 76?

  79. on 08 May 2012 at 2:52 pm 79.DPK said …

    Yes, and I when I present an analogy as to why the god of the gaps argument for abiogenesis is a weak one, I’m told I need a lesson in Earth Sciences……

    “The unwillingness to understand First Principles is an epidemic.”

    I understand the argument of first principles. I understand that it violates its own premise and is therefore meaningless. Is that all you have? “Everything needs a cause, therefore gods must be invoked?” THAT’s your evidence?

  80. on 08 May 2012 at 3:02 pm 80.DPK said …

    “You have not presented one argument that would indicate that you are nothing other than delusional. Hence, until you prove otherwise, yours is nothing other than the ramblings of a sick mind.”

    And there you have it Ladies and gents…. the theist argument has once again come full circle to the “If you can’t DISPROVE it, then it must be real”.
    What a tragic existence to live in a world where NOT believing in invisible, magical beings without ANY evidence or rationality is considered a delusion…”

    You are right, I haven’t allowed you to divert the discussion away from evidence that gods exist to abiogenesis. Why? Because it is irrelevant. In fact, I ceded the point, I’m not a biologist. I have no idea how the first cell formed, do you? Do you, anti-mouse. Please tell us, since you KNOW how it happened. Because we’ve heard this tale before. Let’s see if you can put a different spin on it.

  81. on 08 May 2012 at 4:21 pm 81.Lou said …

    Doug

    I have posted here for years. You are a relative newcomer. Horatio has not posted here in quite awhile so I must ask. Exactly how do you know of him?

  82. on 08 May 2012 at 4:27 pm 82.Lou(DFW) said …

    72.Anti-Mouse said …

    “Lou’s sock puppet said: “So what? Is your claim that because I cannot explain it to your satisfaction then therefore it must be magic?”

    You haven’t even tried, so stop lying and pretending to argue against points that haven’t been made”

    Except that’s EXACTLY the point that theists here continuously attempt to make – that unless it’s proven that god DOESN’T exist, therefore he does exist because theists won’t accept any explanation for natural events that they think contradicts their delusion.

  83. on 08 May 2012 at 4:34 pm 83.Doug Fo said …

    81Lou, I didn’t make the claim, that’s why I used the quotation marks. I really don’t know, however, given the behavoir of some people seems to be consistent with socks(similar obsessions, language, grammar, intellectual dishonesty games) and the other atheists of the board state that the original Nym was Horatio, the assertation that these are socks is consistent with the evidence.

  84. on 08 May 2012 at 5:39 pm 84.Anonymous said …

    And the reason why Lou non-DFW (who also has been absent for some time) is an authority on Horatio is…? Hint, for extra credit look up gas-lighting and wait for that to enter Hor’s repertoire.

  85. on 08 May 2012 at 5:48 pm 85.Lou said …

    Doug

    Anonymous wasn’t around the last time I remember Horatio posting either.

    Fact is, Nobody posting today sounds anything like Horatio. Further, if you would like to use similar vocabulary, arguments, obsessions, and pats on the back as evidence then you among a few others are, socks, as you would call them.

    Going back to the very name of this blog, for two years I have asked how the name of this blog supports there is no God. Never one serious reply

    I have asked how the godisimiginary.com arguments provide proof of no God. Still no serious replies.

    Doug, why would it be that all those who post here cannot offer any serious responses? It is the very premise of the blog.

  86. on 08 May 2012 at 5:54 pm 86.Lou said …

    anonymous

    FYI, I posted here last week.

    Now anonymous calling others socks is the pot calling he kettle black.

  87. on 08 May 2012 at 6:05 pm 87.Severin said …

    68 OY
    “Back to the challenge. When you can explain how information and design arose out of chaos,…”

    Who said there was chaos?
    At any point in time or in the cause and effect chain you chose to start from, matter/energy already existed and followed NOT chaos, but strict natural laws.
    Chaos would exist if you put a glass of water on the table at 20*C and expect it to freeze, or to stay liquid for next 30 days.
    It will never happen! It will evaporate!
    There is no chaos in nature. There are no unpredictable events in nature!
    Chaos is a human “invention” for systems in which humans are (temporarily) unable to see action of natural laws and cause – effect order.
    You obviously have no clue about physics and chemistry.
    You obviously also have no clue about logic.

    If a cell consist of proteins and proteins consist of aminoacids, and aminoacids consist of simpler molecules, and if we know mechanisms (and we DO know them!) to get proteins from aminoacids and aminoacids from simpler molecules, the ONLY logical conclusion is that the way a cell arose was via the path: simple molecules have built aminoacids, aminoacids have built more complex molecules (proteins), proteins have built a primitive cell or something in between (like viruses).
    There is something called “affinity” in chemistry. Affinity fights “chaos”: two chemical groups that have affinity to each other will inevitably mutually react, with 100 % chance, like, for example -NCO and -OH groups, or acid and base, etc.
    WHAT if we do not know how it exactly happened. Many “secrets” are already cleared, and many more will be cleared soon, and all of them eventually, like with all other things that seemed inexplicable until recently.

    If we saw submicroscopic angels connected by their wings in a cell, maybe we could talk god.
    Inform us when you find such a cell, please.

  88. on 08 May 2012 at 6:05 pm 88.DPK said …

    “I have asked how the godisimiginary.com arguments provide proof of no God. Still no serious replies”

    Because, as has been demonstrated time and time again, “proof of no god” is no different than “proof of no fairies” or “proof of no Santa.”

    By your definition, both of those fantasy characters are real until someone proves conclusively that they are not. So, how about it Lou… can you hold Santa in your hand, like a rabbit? hahaha

  89. on 08 May 2012 at 6:18 pm 89.Severin said …

    # 76
    “It’s simply incredible that Hor’s sock-puppets will lie about things that are so easily shown to be lies.”

    I am debating here for more than 3 ears and they do it all the time.

    As I wrote many times before, it was never my intention to “fight” those dishonest liars, but to show other people, especially young ones, how to use their own brains to put things on their places.

  90. on 08 May 2012 at 6:36 pm 90.Lou(DFW) said …

    85.Lou said …

    “Going back to the very name of this blog, for two years I have asked how the name of this blog supports there is no God. Never one serious reply”

    First of all, if you want evidence from the site that god is imaginary, then go to the actual site and read it – it’s there.

    Next, the purpose of this blog isn’t as you suggest, but it “explores God and religion in our world today.” This occurs as comments about the topics that the “blog-master” provides.

    The bottom line is this – the only thing you must do in order to support your delusion is provide evidence for your imaginary god. But you NEVER, EVER do because it is an indisputable fact that you can’t. That’s why you and your ilk continuously and unproductively argue about Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, morals, etc. – things that have nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of god. In other words, you’re intellectually dishonest. If you weren’t, then you would simply admit that you have no evidence, and go away. But your delusion is so great that you simply cannot stand to be outed as a fool, so you stay here and argue about it, only to further demonstrate what a fool you are.

  91. on 08 May 2012 at 6:40 pm 91.Lou(DFW) said …

    85.Lou said …

    “Fact is, Nobody posting today sounds anything like Horatio.”

    Fact is, that isn’t a fact.

    The FACT IS that that there are several regular posters who believe that Hor posts here under several alias. However, that doesn’t make it a FACT that he does. But the fact is that he was caught doing at least twice that I know of.

  92. on 08 May 2012 at 6:40 pm 92.40 year Atheist said …

    The First Principles are these:

    1. The Intuitive Principles.

    These principles, while not provable, are known to be valid intuitively.

    a. Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.

    b. Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.

    c. Excluded Middle. A (singular, unity) concept cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false; a (singular, unity) thing cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.

    d. Cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient, as well as prior to and greater than the effect.

    e. Cogito (Descartes). Because I doubt my own doubt, it is true that I think; because I think (truth), I must exist (fact)[While the premises behind the Cogito might be discredited, the Cogito, as a First Principle is hard to deny without denying one's own existence].

    2. The Probabilistic Principles.
    These Principles seem to encompass both truth and existence.
    a. The Immutability of math throughout the universe.

    b. The Immutability of physical law throughout the universe.

    c. The mutability of all levels of verifiability (Godel’s laws).

    3. The Presuppositional Principles.
    These principles are declared either as empirical constraints, or as part of a worldview.
    a. No form of reality exists that cannot be either observed and measured directly or by the use of instrumentation.

    b. No Singularities (temporary violations) exist in the physical laws of the universe.
    4. The Principle of Rational Thought; Skepticism; and Rational Deniability
    These two principles demonstrate the philosophical tension between the Rational Empiricists and the Anti-Rationalists.
    a. No premise should be accepted without evidence.
    ( This is the Principle of Rational Thought, and the basis for “skepticism”

    b. Existence of evidence via intuition is denied.
    (This is the basis for Anti-Rationalism: Nietzsche)(Notice that deniability is declared true as a rational premise, which premise requires the intuition of its truth; so intuition is denied via the use of intuition, which is a paradoxical process to Rationalists – but not to Anti-Rationalists who deny that paradox exists).

    5. The Principles of Evidence
    Evidence is demanded by Rationalists and Skeptics. Anti-Rationalists deny all basis for evidence, except (paradoxically) Darwinism; Anti-Rationalists also deny paradox, having denied the First Principles due to their intuitive basis. So the following principles are Rational principles only, and are not necessarily accepted by the Anti-Rationalists.
    a. All evidence ultimately devolves to the First Principles and is therefore intuitively based.

    b. “Universals” can be assumed valid without proof. These include Mathematics, Logic, and Language (a syllogistic form of logic deriving from the First Principle of Cause and Effect). (Notice that this is an intuited principle).

    c. Empirical evidence:

    1. Physical; Sensate only: Therefore, measurable.

    2. Local (inductive)

    3. Repeatable (deductive)

    4. Universality cannot be proven so must be assumed (intuited, based upon probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

    5. Validity is probabilistic only (intuited, based upon statistical probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

    6. Assumes the validity of the Presuppositional Principles, # 3 above.

    7. Valid Empirical evidence can be falsified, but has not been. (Popper).

    Source of the First Principles
    Observation of the operation and charateristics of the universe has been observed for millenia, and these principles seem to be consistent. However they are not obtainable through the means of experimental empiricism. For example it cannot be proven conclusively that mathematical principles are consistent across the universe, but it can intuited that the universe would be different than it is were they not consistent. Intuitions such as this are the basis for understanding and accepting the First Principles.

    The Philosophy of Empirical Science
    The philosophy of empirical, experimental science presupposes the First Principles; they are unspoken axioms. If any of the First Principles is found to fail for some reason, that failure reflects on scientific knowledge, because the value of that knowledge is dependent upon the truth of those principles. The obverse is not the case: failure of any scientific concept has no affect upon the First Principles. The First Principles are not subject to empirical study or validation.

    The First Principles are axiomatic precursors to logic, rationality, mathematics and empirical science. These principles are as close to Truth as fallible humans can get. Science on the other hand produces contingent hypotheses which are subject to falsification as future experimental results might produce. Science does not ever produce truth, it produces contingent factoids, based on material inputs only.

    Science, therefore cannot produce evidence that satisfies the stipulations of Philophical Materialism, which is a necessary adjunct of Atheism.

  93. on 08 May 2012 at 7:16 pm 93.Doug Fo said …

    85Lou, you still ignore the fact I did not call “Horatio;” I stated that there are several people going around who appear to be socks of one another, regulars are stating the original is Horatio. I am going off of best available evidence, including the evidence that theists regularly lie on forums, there are liars here, and so on.

    And now, since you seem to be obsessing on the call of socks, even though you aren’t engaging in the other behaviors, makes me suspect you are a sock as well. Because after all, what would a person with multiple sock want to quell but the suspicion there are socks? Would just an honest theist seem to fixate on this, it seems unlikely.
    Furthermore you use Lou as your Nym, and several of these sock use Nyms that are derivitives of regular atheist posters names….that certainly doesn’t help your case.

    As to that latter portion of your post, No WWGHA only disporves the God Yahweh, or a Tri-omni God, it does not address the Deist God. Occam’s razor does that already.

  94. on 08 May 2012 at 7:17 pm 94.Prime said …

    75.MegaByte said …

    ““You must be able to hold it in your hand, like a rabbit, in order for it to be factual.”

    Biff that was Prime who required that as a condition to prove God’s existence. The unwillingness to understand First Principles is an epidemic.”

    Actually, you twits, that was ONE of the criteria I would accept. Show me a real god like rabbits are real, and I’ll believe.

    Can’t do that? Proceed to the other requirements I showed.

    I’m stunned you people are this stupid, and I’m from the South, which makes that quite the statement.

  95. on 08 May 2012 at 7:25 pm 95.Prime said …

    For example…
    Let’s pretend for a minute that you guys are right, and that at the moment of my death, I’ll meet God face to face.

    At that moment, I would believe in God. Only someone as willfully dense as you guys wouldn’t. The fact that your theology says that this God who so thoroughly hides himself from view during our lives will make such a huge and horrible decision about us based upon whether or not we believe without evidence is one of the most asinine and disgusting things I’ve ever come across.

    That, however, won’t happen. It’s pointless, really, even to pretend that it will even for the sake of discussion.

    What else might I accept? Well, the religions that pretend to talk with “authority” about God, meaning where you got all your “information” about Him, have made a variety of claims. Some of those could possibly be substantiated, but they NEVER, EVER are. In fact, every time we look, we see every reason not to need to believe in this hypothesis of magic, even if the looking takes a while.

    It’s painfully stunning that you’re still asking people to prove that there is no God, which you should know is an error known as shifting the burden of proof (if you can actually read… it seems, though, that the annoyingly verbose 40YA should be aware of it). It’s not new ones of you who might not know yet; it’s the same ones of you, proving that you’re so smug in your beliefs that you don’t spend even three minutes looking into anything we say to you to see how things actually work. That might be, better than anything I’ve heard yet, the working definition of an idiot.

  96. on 08 May 2012 at 8:40 pm 96.Lou(DFW) said …

    92.40 year Atheist said …

    “These principles, while not provable, are known to be valid intuitively.

    a. Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.

    b. Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.”

    If god only exists in the imagination, does god exist? For theists, yes.

  97. on 08 May 2012 at 9:03 pm 97.Prime said …

    92.40 year Atheist said …

    “The First Principles are these:
    1. The Intuitive Principles.
    These principles, while not provable, are known to be valid intuitively.
    a. Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.
    b. Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.
    c. Excluded Middle. A (singular, unity) concept cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false; a (singular, unity) thing cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.”

    Hmm… apparently 40YA hasn’t heard of other logical systems. There are perfectly coherent other “logics” out there that do not possess (b) and (c) as fundamental parts of their construction. Some possess (b) and not (c), some go the other way, and some have neither. Those logical systems can be combined with various axioms to produce various axiomatic systems, which are usually known as logical constructs, upon which philosophies can be built.

    There are even logical systems that possess infinitely many truth values with which we can evaluate statements, as opposed to the simplest (meaningful) one that we usually work with in Western (Cartesian) logic: true and false.

    Of course, I’m just a “forum mathematician” and probably making all of this up instead of speaking from the authority of actually having a colleague at a large research school in America who specializes in this branch of research.

  98. on 08 May 2012 at 9:05 pm 98.Prime said …

    Since the theists are likely to miss the point of what I just said, let me put it in 40YA speak for them:

    “The First Principles are these:
    1. Things humans invent to attempt to understand the world.
    2. Not proof (even philosophical) of a deity.
    3. Not the deity itself.”

  99. on 08 May 2012 at 9:21 pm 99.Lou(DFW) said …

    97.Prime said …

    “Of course, I’m just a “forum mathematician” and probably making all of this up instead of speaking from the authority of actually having a colleague at a large research school in America who specializes in this branch of research.”

    You’re are makng it up unless you capitalize your title like a certain blog member Astrophysicist. So if you expect to lend any credence to your claim, then it must be Forum Mathematician!

  100. on 08 May 2012 at 10:04 pm 100.Prime said …

    I’m a forRum mathematiciaN.

  101. on 09 May 2012 at 12:29 am 101.A said …

    40 Year said ”

    If any of the First Principles is found to fail for some reason, that failure reflects on scientific knowledge, because the value of that knowledge is dependent upon the truth of those principles.”

    This is where so many fall short in their understanding of what science attempts to do and the truth of what First Principles establish. Science tells us next to nothing regarding origins. First Principles establishes the ground work for understanding principles of logic and inevitably the ground work for what is truth. Science attempts to branch into this area but in doing so often violates their own principles. They howl “where is God proof” and “You never ever do!” and do not understand why they are disregarded. A well rounded educations needs to teach these principles.

    Good post 40 Year but I think you have over shot a majority of the audience.

  102. on 09 May 2012 at 12:52 am 102.alex said …

    “Science tells us next to nothing regarding origins.”

    i’m your huckleberry. the mighty allah, with his prophet, the magical horse riding muhammad, created the universe. case closed.

  103. on 09 May 2012 at 1:01 am 103.Prime said …

    101.A said …

    “This is where so many fall short in their understanding of what science attempts to do and the truth of what First Principles establish. Science tells us next to nothing regarding origins. First Principles establishes the ground work for understanding principles of logic and inevitably the ground work for what is truth.”

    Um, even if that’s right, who cares? “First Principles,” extra important because they’re capitalized Principles, basically tell us how we approach ideas. That’s it. That’s all. That’s fracking it.

    They do not establish a God.
    They do not create the necessity for a God.
    They do not support a cosmic notion of Logos that can be conflated with a notion of a God.
    They fail *utterly* in connecting in any substantive way except via a priori assumptions and post hoc weaseling to any of the major world religions.

    They’re a set of “first principles” applied to a logical system via which people agree to approach the world. That logical system in the West is Cartesian, and it’s not the only logical system available (which is why we shouldn’t call it “the” road to “T”ruth).

    For examples, the Taoists and the Buddhists influenced by them (Zen, notably) actually use a completely different logic to underlie their construction of the “metaphysical world,” by which is meant the realm of ideas about the world, by which is meant mental constructions that exist in the minds of human beings and allow us to make sense of the world we live in once equipped with a logical framework and a set of fundamental axioms.

    40YA shot over us? Um, maybe in hipster-heaven where under is the new over and foul behind the plate is the new dead-center over second.

  104. on 09 May 2012 at 1:09 am 104.alex said …

    92.40 year Atheist said …

    Excellent post once again! I am enthralled by your concise, yet deliciously descriptive prose. How I envy your excellent writing style.

    I’ve been following all your posts and have quivered with agonizing anticipation as I await your next round of illuminating, yet provocative delivery. Such impressive command of the English language!

    As I type this, with my precious Bible at my side, I can’t help but feel sorry for all the atheists that have continue to harass and ridicule all the Good People.

    I will continue to pray for them and I’m sure you will do the same. I look forward to more of your excellent posts.

    Your #1 Fan.
    Alex -> ROTFL

  105. on 09 May 2012 at 1:44 am 105.Anonymous said …

    40Y arguments are always based on flawed thinking, false assumptions and fallacies

    His verbosity seems to be a ruse to hide the sleight of hand where he sneaks in a cosmological argument. All that stuff about “logic” and “intuition”, that’s just cover for him to explain away the inconvenient points such as contradictions, lack of proof, and to simply assert a position out of thin air.

    His final insult to rational thinking is to insist that… wait for it… his first cause argument has to be disproven but not just disproven, shown to be false “throughout every femtosecond of past, present and future”. Folks, you can’t get much more close-minded than that.

  106. on 09 May 2012 at 1:55 am 106.Lou(DFW) said …

    101.A 40YA fluffer said …

    “They howl “where is God proof” and “You never ever do!”

    Actually, no. Specifically, I continuously ask for EVIDENCE, not proof, of your imaginary god.

    “…and do not understand why they are disregarded.”

    Yes, we do, but you didn’t quote that or answer – because it’s an indisputable fact that you don’t have any such evidence.

    “A well rounded educations needs to teach these principles.”

    Where does one get a “well rounded educations” like yours, bible school?

    “Good post 40 Year but I think you have over shot a majority of the audience.”

    And I think for an “Astrophysicist” with a “well rounded educations” that you missed a few days of writing class.

  107. on 09 May 2012 at 3:06 am 107.DPK said …

    Found an urban dictionary definition for 40yr Stan…. I propose it as his new moniker __Gobshite___
    look it up.

  108. on 09 May 2012 at 5:45 am 108.Severin said …

    101 A
    “Science tells us next to nothing regarding origins.”

    That is not the truth, of course. Science has no all answers, but its answers are more or less consistent and logically acceptable.

    Now, what do tell us some 1.5 million existing religions?
    1.5 million inconsistent, contradictory, illogical stories that have nothing to do with anything we actually know, feel and experience.

    For example: did Allah create the word or JHVH?
    Or maybe it was the “Great Spirit”? Or some Chinese god?
    Ra? One of millions of local gods still worshiped by millions of people?

    Ridiculous!

  109. on 09 May 2012 at 11:15 am 109.Anonymous said …

    Lou said: “I have asked how the godisimiginary.com (sic) arguments provide proof of no God. Still no serious replies.”

    Perform a google search on this site. You’ll find that Xenon, Lou, and Horatio keep making that spelling mistake. Xenon has been outed in the past as one of Horatio’s sock puppets and, as noted, Lou is trying way too hard to muddy the waters regarding sock-puppets and trolling.

    Oops, Hor, you’re busted again.

  110. on 09 May 2012 at 12:04 pm 110.Lou (DFW) said …

    109.Anonymous said …

    “Perform a google search on this site. You’ll find that Xenon, Lou, and Horatio keep making that spelling mistake. Xenon has been outed in the past as one of Horatio’s sock puppets and, as noted, Lou is trying way too hard to muddy the waters regarding sock-puppets and trolling.”

    So did Clausewitz, who was also shown to be Hor sock-puppet.

  111. on 09 May 2012 at 1:40 pm 111.Anonymous said …

    Good point Lou and going to the thread where Clausewitz was twigged the response was consistent with the other times Hor’s been rumbled… Up popped a couple of “supporters” to accuse the accuser.

    Oh, your lead also showed Biff using the same spelling and sentence construction, and he’s been noted as part of the clan too.

  112. on 09 May 2012 at 3:06 pm 112.Prime said …

    104.alex said …

    “92.40 year Atheist said …
    Excellent post once again! I am enthralled by your concise, yet deliciously descriptive prose. How I envy your excellent writing style.
    I’ve been following all your posts and have quivered with agonizing anticipation as I await your next round of illuminating, yet provocative delivery. Such impressive command of the English language!
    As I type this, with my precious Bible at my side, I can’t help but feel sorry for all the atheists that have continue to harass and ridicule all the Good People.
    I will continue to pray for them and I’m sure you will do the same. I look forward to more of your excellent posts.
    Your #1 Fan.
    Alex -> ROTFL”

    Soooooo hard to believe this isn’t written by a poe. It simply gushes with insincerity and smacks of sycophancy.

  113. on 09 May 2012 at 3:22 pm 113.Anonymous said …

    112.Prime, I think it was a poe in the style of the immediate “oh, you are so wonderful and so right” posts (taunts?) that greet 40′s word salad and, themselves, don’t contain anything of value to the conversation. Check out the ROTFL at the end.

    The sign of a good poe is that it’s practically indistinguishable from the real thing. No?

  114. on 09 May 2012 at 3:32 pm 114.Anonymous said …

    Seeing as there is a reference to anti-gay sentiment here, and the activity going in North Carolina and such, can someone explain to me if there are any serious objections to same-sex marriage that are not rooted in religion?

  115. on 09 May 2012 at 4:13 pm 115.Anonymous said …

    114:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/tcw5j/are_there_any_nonreligious_arguments_against/

  116. on 09 May 2012 at 4:23 pm 116.Doug Fo said …

    Anon, again what is serious versus non-serious? This is a no true Scottsman. There are objections that are non-serious to you and me, but completely serious to the objector.

    Including
    *It is unnatural(yes an appeal to nature)

    *It redefines marriage(an appeal to antquity)

    *It condones an immoral lifestyle(circular reasoning)

    *It will affect how the children are raised(which is circular reasoning because it mean being gay is objectionable in the first place, it all is an ignoring the counterevidence because it ignores the genetic component of homosexuality as well as the fact there are single parent)

    *It undermines the purpose of marriage as the rearing of children(circular reasoning, posioning the well, ignoring the counterevidence of childless and childfree couples)

  117. on 09 May 2012 at 5:16 pm 117.Lou(DFW) said …

    111.Anonymous said …

    “Good point Lou and going to the thread where Clausewitz was twigged the response was consistent with the other times Hor’s been rumbled… Up popped a couple of “supporters” to accuse the accuser.”

    “Oh, your lead also showed Biff using the same spelling and sentence construction, and he’s been noted as part of the clan too.”

    Perform an online search on:

    +Horatio +Clausewitz

    You will find that they have something in common that must be of interest to Ben-Hor.

  118. on 09 May 2012 at 6:23 pm 118.Anonymous said …

    115&116, thank you.

    Doug, good point on the no true Scotsman, the question was poorly worded.

  119. on 11 May 2012 at 9:12 pm 119.Blake said …

    Here’s the thing… whatever you believe either way, I would direct your attention to the fact that a healthy person who is secure in their belief would not ridicule or disrespect another’s beliefs.

  120. on 11 May 2012 at 11:06 pm 120.Prime said …

    119.Blake said …

    “Here’s the thing… whatever you believe either way, I would direct your attention to the fact that a healthy person who is secure in their belief would not ridicule or disrespect another’s beliefs.”

    No. Here’s the thing… Not believing isn’t beliefs.

    Would you ridicule or disrespect (or seek mental health help) for someone who believed with all their heart and all their mind and all their soul in Santa Claus? What about if they believed the same in Jeebuniber, the voice that talks to them in their head and tells them to do bad things to the scary people?

  121. on 17 May 2012 at 2:53 pm 121.CALL ON JESUS said …

    The time is near, the lies are great,
    The love is false, and the time is hate,
    I fear the pride,
    has served to hide,
    the wisdom needed,
    to see what you denied.

    Atheist Professor from Berkeley gets a glimpse of hell
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vj0qKthCgg&sns=em

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply