Krumple
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
The question of what is the REALITY is beyond our comprehension...and asserting there are no gods is every bit as illogical and self-serving as asserting there are gods.


As it has been pointed out to dozens of times already Frank and you pretend as if it was never mentioned is the fact that there is just as much a position where NO GOD exists as there is for suggesting that there COULD be a god that exists.

there could be a god = no god exists

They are equal. Neither one has any more credibility or evidence to say it is more likely. You want to completely ignore this fact. Part of your arrogance to claim you are something other than an atheist but you aren't a theist either. You are so great you are something that doesn't exist.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:02 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Quote:
If none of the gods worshiped by humans existed...

...it would have zero impact on whether or not a god or gods actually exist.


Huh? I'm sure that's not what you meant to say or I'm reading it wrong.

Parsing it I'm getting:

If X doesn't exist it has no impact on whether or not X exists.

Sounds fallacious. But it's late here.


Not sure how you are reading it, Hinge...but...

...even if every god ever worshiped by humans never existed...

...that does not mean a god does not exist.

Frankly, I find the notion of "god needing to be worshiped" as absurd. There may simply be a god that doesn't have to be worshiped...or a god that has to be worshiped, but not yet discovered by humans.

In any case, I blindly guess that if there is a GOD...IT will not be anything like the gods humans have worshiped on Earth. They all seem to be constructs of fears early humans had...and which have been passed on to modern generations that have, so far, been unable to shed them.
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:04 am
What Frank tries to do is to pass off careful consideration of probabilities as a "blind guess." Frank was getting hammered about beliefs a few years ago, so now he claims he "doesn't do" belief and insists on the word "guess," which is not, of course, a cognate for belief. Frank's not too swift, but he certainly is nasty to people who don't his line of bullsh*t.
hingehead
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:06 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
...that does not mean a god does not exist.


Oh, that was the missing non-sequitor.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:10 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The question of what is the REALITY is beyond our comprehension...and asserting there are no gods is every bit as illogical and self-serving as asserting there are gods.


As it has been pointed out to dozens of times already Frank and you pretend as if it was never mentioned is the fact that there is just as much a position where NO GOD exists as there is for suggesting that there COULD be a god that exists.

there could be a god = no god exists


Of course there is as much a position that no god exists as there is that god exists. I have never suggested otherwise.

Why do you make up straw men and fight them? Why not quote what I actually say rather than trying to paraphrase, Krumple, because you are woefully inadequate to that sort of thing.

Quote:
They are equal.


I think they are equal...although almost no atheists in this forum agrees. Most think it is far from equal.


Quote:
Neither one has any more credibility or evidence to say it is more likely.


Thank you. You've got it. That is what I have been arguing for years here...and gotten much static from atheists on it.

The atheists here must be quaking right now!!!!



Quote:
You want to completely ignore this fact.


I have never ignored it...I have argued for it repeatedly over the years.



Quote:
Part of your arrogance to claim you are something other than an atheist but you aren't a theist either. You are so great you are something that doesn't exist.


You are a gem, Krumple. If YOU didn't exist, I would try to invent you.

What say you atheists...do you agree with Krumple here????



http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:11 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

What Frank tries to do is to pass off careful consideration of probabilities as a "blind guess." Frank was getting hammered about beliefs a few years ago, so now he claims he "doesn't do" belief and insists on the word "guess," which is not, of course, a cognate for belief. Frank's not too swift, but he certainly is nasty to people who don't his line of bullsh*t.


C'mon, Setanta...don't let me drag you into this so easily.

I do not know if there are gods or not. You want to pretend you do.

YOU are guessing.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:12 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Quote:
...that does not mean a god does not exist.


Oh, that was the missing non-sequitor.


I don't see that it was missing...

...and I do not see it as a non-sequitor.

But no problem if you do.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Actually, my comments here about Portal Star and other agnostics (but not about you) drug you out from under your bridge pretty quickly.

I do not for a moment pretend to know if there are gods. As i have consistently said, i don't believe there are gods because the proposition is preposterous. So, i am neither "guessing" (to employ your idiotic abuse of language) that there are no gods, nor is my reasoning based on any blindness. I know of no evidence for anything supernatural ever having occurred or existed. On that entirely reasonable basis, i don't believe that anything supernatural does exist. That's belief, and reasoned belief, not blind faith, and not "guessing."

I know this will go right over your head, but you had to construct a straw man to knock down.
hingehead
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:34 am
Yay. Good Friday Fuckwit spam.

This sort of thing only confirms my belief about one kind of person attracted to theism. Why spam nonsensical easily disproven trash? Beats me. Maybe this is the 21st century equivalent of a hail mary?

I replied to [email protected] thanking him for setting me straight - as I was toying with believing and was shopping for a god. Clearly I should steer clear of the ones who rely on spamming bullshit. That's one down.

INTERESTING QUESTION

Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?
By Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson 5/25/11

During a question and answer sessionat a recent speaking engagement,
a university student asked me, "Why do you believe that the Bible is
the inspired word of God?" Now this is a very interesting question;
and probably one of the most important questions any Christian could
ask himself. What is so special, so unique about the Bible that
Christians believe it is literally the inspired word of God?

In answering this student'squestion, I encouraged him to consider the
following facts about the Bible:
First, the Bible is not just one single book. This is a more common
misconception than many people realize, especially with people who do
not come from a Judeo-Christian background. Rather than being a single
book, the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called
the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a variety of genres:
history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic
just to name a few.

Second, these 66 books were written by 40 different authors.These
authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen,
doctors, kings, prophets, and others. And most of these authors never
knew one another personally.
Third, these 66 books were written over a period of 1500 years. Yet
again, this is another reminder that many of these authors never knew
or collaborated with one another in writing these books.
Fourth, the 66 books of the Bible were written in 3 different
languages. In the Bible we have books that were written in the ancient
languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the
historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books
were written.

And finally, these 66 books were written on 3 different continents:
Africa, Asia, and Europe . Once again, this isa testament to the
varied historical and cultural circumstances of God's people.

Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different
authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different
continents. What's more, this collection of books shares a common
storyline - the creation, fall, and redemption of God'speople; a
common theme - God's universal love for all of humanity; and a common
message - salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and
commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and
strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books
contain no historical errors or contradictions. God's word truly is an
amazing collection of writings!

After I had shared the above factswith this student, I offered him
the following challenge: I said to him, "If you do not believe that
the Bible is the inspired word of God, if you do not believe that the
Bible is of a supernatural origin, then I challenge you to a test." I
said to the student, "I challenge you to go to any library in the
world, you can choose any library you like, and find 66 books which
match the characteristics of the 66 books in the Bible. You must
choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in
3 different languages, written on 3 different continents. However,
they must share a common storyline, a common theme, and a common
message, with no historical errors or contradictions." I went on to
say, "If you can produce such a collection of books, I will admit that
the Bible is not the inspired word of God." The student's reply was
almost instantaneous, he emphatically stated, "But that'simpossible!"
It truly is impossible for any collection of writings.However,
the Bible passes this test. The Bible contains 66 books,written by 40
different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3
different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The
entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine
inspiration.

The next time you encounter someone who asks you why you believe the
Bible is the inspired word of God, try sharing this challenge with
them. Better yet, don't wait until you're asked, just go ahead and
share this challenge with a friend today... You don't even have to
mention the Bible up front, just ask them if they think it would be
realistic to assemble such a collection of books.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Actually, my comments here about Portal Star and other agnostics (but not about you) drug you out from under your bridge pretty quickly.


Nah...I was never under any bridge.

Quote:
I do not for a moment pretend to know if there are gods.


Yeah, Setanta, you do pretend to know there are no gods. You pretend that the notion itself is preposterous...and you pretend that you are not possessed of a belief system that asserts gods do not exist.

You are a pretense...but a delightful and enjoyable pretense.

By the way, it is okay with me if you stop pretending for a while that you are ignoring me. We have to have these little conversations once in a while...you and I. Let's get to it. Wink



Quote:
As i have consistently said, i don't believe there are gods because the proposition is preposterous.


Oh...constantly! Wink


Quote:
So, i am neither "guessing" (to employ your idiotic abuse of language) that there are no gods, nor is my reasoning based on any blindness. I know of no evidence for anything supernatural ever having occurred or existed. On that entirely reasonable basis, i don't believe that anything supernatural does exist. That's belief,


Oh my goodness...was that a Freudian slip, Setanta?

Quote:
...and reasoned belief, not blind faith, and not "guessing."


Yeah, "reasoned." Setanta...come to grips with it! You will be the better for it if you do. YOU GUESS THAT NO GODS EXIST...and that is what I have been saying.



Quote:
I know this will go right over your head, but you had to construct a straw man to knock down.


How could anything you are able to say go over my head????

You are just kidding here, right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:40 am
I've never pretended that i ignore you. When you try to drag my name into a discussion by lying about what i say, then i may respond. However, your entertainment value is limited. Bye bye, troll.
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:43 am
@hingehead,
Fortunately, there are lots and lots of Chinese living in this city. There will be stores open all over town today.

By the way, there was a remarkably detailed image of Madalyn Murray O'Hair on my toast this morining! But i was really hungry, so i buttered it and ate it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:46 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I've never pretended that i ignore you. When you try to drag my name into a discussion by lying about what i say, then i may respond. However, your entertainment value is limited. Bye bye, troll.


I'll be reading all you write...and laughing at the pomposity, Setanta. Keep at it.

I suspect I get a lot more enjoyment out of the exchanges than you...so it is a bit unfair.

Ta!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 06:53 am
@Wilso,
Quote:
Generally, those who complain sexual morals, are those who aren't getting any.


Freud used that gambit to assert that all men had a homosexual component. It is a gambit chosen because it can't be disproved. It's an ad hom to be frank about it. And it implies, as you intend, that you are getting a satisfying amount

What amount of sex do you consider adequate to avoid complaining about sexual morals?

It's a false argument Wilso because people complaining about sexual morals are talking about societies and communities and not about individuals.

What do you suggest in respect of our natural promiscuity? No inhibitions is one choice. Some inhibitions enforced by different degrees of control is another. As you are most unlikely to agree to no inhibitions perhaps you will tell us what inhibitions you recommend and why.

Many people of all persuasions think sex a disgusting and, if pursued properly, degrading activity.

How do you define sex? Anybody into bat on the science side has to start there.

Fortunately you have me on Ignore so you are unable to answer my questions. Which is mighty convenient for you I must say and your preemptive move is really, really clever and enables you to thrill your fans with loose talk about a matter you have not defined.

I will define it. Sex is the action of copulation between a male and a female from which is excluded anything imported in to the exchange from outside the two person's nature which is intended to prevent conception.

That has no spectrum whereas everything else is on a sliding scale down to a handshake. Mailer said it best but I had better not quote his words as I know what fine up-standing Christians the contributors to this thread are.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:04 am
@Krumple,
Why is it that everytime I have heard men discuss the matter they have agreed that Catholic girls are the best. I think it is because the thrill of the great lover's erection is reinforced by the thrill of sinning and the atheist girl has to be contented with just the thrill of the great lover's erection. Which Julie Burchill described on TV as a "little local irritation" with her ex sitting opposite her and a small studio audience.

From a lot of things Ms Burchill has said and written for the public it is reasonable to assume she is an atheist. Although with her having run off with another lady she has created options in view of the fact that the Church has never condemned girl on girl.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:17 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
No neighbours glared at me for not going to church.


See how tolerant they are then. It is the modern religious viewpoint that atheists are harmless. That they stay away from the circles where the contracts get stitched up, and the most promising young ladies are to be found, is seen as a good thing because there is more to be shared out among those who network outside the church after the service. The Sunday morning handyman is thought of as a non-entity. And denying himself listening to a choir of virgins sing Ave Maria in order to enjoy a stiff brush and a shovel is, imo, a bit masochistic.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:22 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Why is it that everytime I have heard men discuss the matter they have agreed that Catholic girls are the best. I think it is because the thrill of the great lover's erection is reinforced by the thrill of sinning and the atheist girl has to be contented with just the thrill of the great lover's erection. Which Julie Burchill described on TV as a "little local irritation" with her ex sitting opposite her and a small studio audience.

From a lot of things Ms Burchill has said and written for the public it is reasonable to assume she is an atheist. Although with her having run off with another lady she has created options in view of the fact that the Church has never condemned girl on girl.


I think you are generalizing quite a bit here. Imposing your own ideas onto it probably. I think it has more to do with the uniform rather than them being catholic. But that would just be silly right? After all it has everything to do with them being catholic. Who would care about a stupid uniform?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:28 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

I think it has more to do with the uniform rather than them being catholic. But that would just be silly right? After all it has everything to do with them being catholic. Who would care about a stupid uniform?


You are definitely on to something here, Krumple.

Porn movies and porn sites (I love 'em still) abound with girls in Catholic School uniforms. You almost gotta wonder why Catholic Schools allow their female students to wear them. They have become the uniform of porn as much as the uniform of those schools.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:30 am
Quote:
Frank Apisa said: I am dealing with the question, "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"

No human can fathom the Big Picture mate, some snooty religionists liked to think they knew it all but Jesus called them "blind guides"-
Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world..." (John 8:14/ 8:23)

Jesus was a Klaatu figure, and all he could do was give us a broad brush appraisal of things and give us free will to trust him-
"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rennie-blackboard_zpsea5116e4.jpg~original

And like Klaatu, he got a hostile reception from the Establishment-
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/klaatushot_zps44a0c011.jpg~original
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Fri 18 Apr, 2014 07:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
...When it comes ot the "sins" of orgaanized religion, though, i try to be honest. Very few wars ate truly and exclusively religious in character.


I agree. If you dig deeply enough, there are usually a few profiteers behind it all, but they very often rouse the will of the masses to fight by touching on their religious convictions. Without that manipulative tool, they would be less effective in waging war. Also, to say that there are many wars started for other reasons doesn't let religion off the hook. That would only work if someone were to claim that religions were the ONLY reason for war, which I don't think anybody is claiming.

Quote:
Credit where it is due, too. In both Christianity and Islam, there is a strong charitable ethos within their communities....


I wouldn't begrudge that fact for a moment. However, that doesn't mean that without religions there would be no charity or even less of it. I'm pretty sure the compassion existed long before any particular extant religion and works in the human psyche independently of it. Also, think of all the money spent on immense and immensely expensive cathedrals, megachurches and mosques to glorify an imaginary diety that could have been used to eradicate hunger and poverty, put homes over people's heads, clothes on their backs, food in children's stomachs education in their heads. This is a very long list of secular charities, which, of course, don't waste donated money on such things: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 497
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 05:43:21