I am bewildered by some of the people on here. It is hopeless.

@"Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any gods does not mean that there are not gods. That is all that I am trying to say."

Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any Flying Spaghetti Monsters does not mean that there are not Flying Spaghetti monsters. That is all that I am trying to say.

Which means you are saying nothing at all.

Attempting to shift the burden of proof is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

We don't "THINK" we don't have a need to prove there are not any gods. We KNOW we don't. It is up to the claimant to prove their claims. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

---

(July 1, 2012 at 2:40 am)Micah Wrote: I am bewildered by some of the people on here. It is hopeless.

Did anyone call for volunteers to play "devil's advocate"?

I have never seen anyone who claimed to be playing self-appointed "devil's advocate" who wasn't simply trying to sidestep responsibility (and flak) for their hidden true beliefs.

Lie with dogs, pick up fleas.

"I'm just playing devil's advocate" is snakeoilsalesmaneese for "I'm being a douchebag".

Micah, you have to realize that just because something is possible, doesn't make it probable. It is entirely possible that today at exactly 12:47:13 pm while walking down Tokay Blvd. about 350 feet away from my current residence that a small asteroid could hurtle through the atmosphere, moving at about 2000 MPH and could impact right into the very central point of the back of my head and pulverize it entirely so hard and fast that I would never even feel it, and I might land splayed out on the sidewalk in the image of Christ on the cross [sans head].

ENTIRELY possible! But I refuse to calculate the exact odds of that happening. Ballpark figure, I'd say the number against the one is probably a five followed by about a trillion 0s. To say something is possible is something that's a bit obvious; LOTS of things are possible. Doesn't mean I have to consider their likelihood.

It's entirely possible a man was born to a virgin through her hymen after she was given a message by a flying man with wings on his back, walked on water, turned it into wine, predicted his betrayal based on absolutely no information whatsoever, made the blind see by touching them, died, then came back to life and floated into the sky-

Wait. No it's not. Which is why the entire conversation is actually pointless. The story of Jesus is just the most recent retelling of an ancient series of stories about men being born to virgins, being the offspring of immortal entities, having the ability to heal the crippled and sick with mere touch, dying and coming back to life and ascending to a greater plane. The story has been told a dozen fucking times over throughout history, and the fact the believers refuse to acknowledge this as merely being a retread of old pagan stories with some minor changes so it fits to their own self-fulfilling prophecy is infuriatingly annoying.

So, in closing; yes, there are ELEMENTS of the gospels that MAY be possible. But the entire thing being 100% accurate? Or even 50%? No, it is not, and if you can't even rely on half of the book that is supposedly the "true book" then there's nothing very true about it and it falls down the slippery slope, loses all of its supposed infallibility and becomes COMPLETELY. TOTALLY. 100% IRRELEVANT to anybody who places any value in the perception of reality.

It's a collection of myths and fairy tales. If you think it's possible that it's true after considering that, well go ahead and also consider that maybe Mr. Smith really WAS receiving divine revelations from god on a bunch of stones that the native Americans were all an unremembered tribe of Canaanites or some such horseshit, and that Lord Xenu possibly did visit this planet and dump a bunch of evil bad guy aliens' spirits into volcanoes from which they moved to infect human bodies and blah fucking blah blah blah; IT'S ALL STUPID BULLSHIT. It all requires you to stop questioning things and to "just believe." How many theologians throughout history have praised the simple-mindedness and ignorance of their flocks and warned about intellectual pursuits and different, contrary thoughts to the established creeds? COUNTLESS numbers. The theists of today are just retreads of the theologians of yesterday; desperately trying to keep their relevance alive and strong in the face of being exposed for the frauds, lies, and nincompoops they are an inch at a time.

Are we done? IS the debate over, now?

(July 1, 2012 at 2:40 am)Micah Wrote: I am bewildered by some of the people on here. It is hopeless.

Don't let the door slam your arse on the way out.

That's a bit harsh, but I can say that "hopeless" is a fair resolution to a debate about christianity's validity.

(July 1, 2012 at 10:52 am)Epimethean Wrote: That's a bit harsh, but I can say that "hopeless" is a fair resolution to a debate about christianity's validity.

"Harsh"? Not my first thought which was " Who IS this drongo, and who gives fuck what he thinks?"

(June 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(June 30, 2012 at 4:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think the same Epi. Securely shackled to a pov, olympian standard at the backflip.

Isn't that the whole thing with religion, Fr0ds? No matter which way you're coming at it, it IS all a matter of view.

No. It's a matter of understanding information. Lack of understanding = lack of belief. Belief = informed choice.

I would hope to believe of you that you've thought about what you believe and have reached an informed descision. Religion or no religion that remains the same.

---

(July 1, 2012 at 2:22 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

(June 30, 2012 at 3:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I wonder the same about atheists Skepsis. After years of searching I've yet to find a single one. Search these forums and you'll find several xtians who have put up.

You have presented not a shred of evidence to support your extraordinary claim that your fairy tale is true.

And of course you demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject. Scientists find you embarrasasing.

(June 29, 2012 at 8:33 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 29, 2012 at 5:00 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So you have evidence for god then.....?

How is that in any way relevant to what he said?

Quite relevent actually old chap.

Frodo's claim is that Dawkins is ignorant of religion.

Exactly what aspect is Dawkins ignorant of?

Its specious claim to hold ultimate truth?

Its self assumed mantle of divine authority?

Its unsubstantiated ownership of objective morality?

Or its unverifiable claim for a unobservable deity?

Since Dawkin's main claim to fame(in this case anyway) is the falsehood of religion, all Frodo needs to do is produce evidence for god.

And then he will prove Dawkins wrong.

Until then...........

---

(July 1, 2012 at 2:40 am)Micah Wrote: I am bewildered by some of the people on here. It is hopeless.

But it is entertaining.

---

(July 2, 2012 at 5:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 1, 2012 at 2:22 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: You have presented not a shred of evidence to support your extraordinary claim that your fairy tale is true.

And of course you demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject. Scientists find you embarrasasing.

Frods, as always, you come out with the classic lines

Which scientists would they be? Jason Lisle? Kent Hovind?

(July 2, 2012 at 6:41 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Exactly what aspect is Dawkins ignorant of?

Potentially everything out of the scope of science. Wouldn't you agree?

You might insist (without any empirical support) that everything has to empirically proven. Reality is on my side though.

Its specious claim to hold ultimate truth?
Is that truth scientific in nature? If so, on what grounds does Dawkins challenge it?

Its self assumed mantle of divine authority?
Ditto.

Its unsubstantiated ownership of objective morality?
Morality being rooted in God, who offers, like you correctly state, not an ounce of empirical claim?

Or its unverifiable claim for a unobservable deity?
Now there's a funny statement!

You know I'd go along with that 100%: (empirically) unobservable deity. Yet you don't seem to be able to grasp what faith means: belief without empirical proof. With good reason, but without the logically impossible... sure.

(July 2, 2012 at 6:41 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Since Dawkin's main claim to fame(in this case anyway) is the falsehood of religion, all Frodo needs to do is produce evidence for god.

Yes. Dawkins wants proof that circles aren't squares. He's that fucking ignorant.

---

(July 2, 2012 at 6:41 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(July 2, 2012 at 5:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: And of course you demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject. Scientists find you embarrasasing.

Frods, as always, you come out with the classic lines

Which scientists would they be? Jason Lisle? Kent Hovind?

Scientists who observe the common sense attitude that science deals with the observable. Sure there are those who call themselves scientists who go chasing evidence of fairies, celestial teapots and the like. What they don't also do is follow the scientific method, which sadly for your case is defined.

Errr...none of those posted are actually "scientists" f0d0s.... charlatans yes, scientist? Umm NO