(April 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You cannot present an argument for something as vague as a featureless "supreme being" because that is not what your religion teaches.

How childish can you be? Since you cannot easily refute the argument for a genetic supreme being, you move the goal post to prove a very specific deity.

(April 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Your religion teaches that a very certain and specific Supreme Being exists and the onus is upon you, maker of the positive claim that your god exists, created the universe, and all other claims are false and blasphemous, to prove it.

Now you are just acting like a bully. I have proved what I wanted to prove. Atheism is not a rational choice.

(April 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You cannot prove that adherents of other religions are not having false visions or delusions, even though your dogma insists that this is true.

Boy, you’re making an awful lot of assumptions about my religion in order to avoid the discussion at hand. What makes you think my religion teaches that all other revelatory experiences are delusionary? God reaches out to people wherever they are belief-wise.

(April 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Since there is no other demonstrably true explanation for what Godschild claims to have experienced, and what he claims to know is true, labeling it a delusion is the only intellectually valid thing to do.

The only intellectually valid thing is chose the an equally unconfirmed explanation you prefer. And you dare to accuse others of confirmation bias? You’re acting hypocritically.

---

(April 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm)median Wrote: It is more than comedy that you think infinities cannot be real (prove it!)

And yet you want me to prove the existence of a deity you claim is not real even though you cannot prove the existence of an actual infinity. Apparently there's one set of rules for believers and another atheists.

(April 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm)median Wrote: yet you think your God is actually infinite. HA! Once again, if you can claim your deity is infinite (an infinite disembodied mind?)

Did I say anything about an infinite god? For that matter did I propose any secondary attributes to the supreme being?

(April 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm)median Wrote: The fact that multiple answers can be given mathematically, when using infinities, does NOT in anyway demonstrate that actual infinities are not possible.

So you can believe in actual infinities despite, the logical inconsistencies such a belief produces, because its possible. But I'm not allowed to believe in the possibility of a god that is in no way inconsistent with the known universe. You guys really think you can have it both ways.

(April 9, 2013 at 7:16 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ median, the dying declaration is admissible in a court of law with a charge of homicide and the one giving the testimony believes death is imminent. Answer the question, you should be know as the artful dodger.

LOL. I answered the question (and in fact I answered it quite directly). You just don't like the answer. Go read it again.

The dodging is all yours.

---

(April 9, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Ryantology Wrote: That's unfair and dishonest. You're asking me to justify a decision you made for me. I would never, in a million years, vote to convict a man solely on the basis of testimony which can never be cross-examined or questioned. If I was on a jury like that, I would do whatever I could to deadlock it.

Unfair, you calling unfair, now that's . You want physical proof of the spiritual, now that I think about it, you're being unreasonable and dishonest, especially when I've admitted I can't give any to people who close themselves off to the possibility. I have not tried to prove to you that my experiences are real, I made the statement that my experiences are real and you try to tell me I'm deluded. You have no spiritual evidence to the contrary of what I stated. When you come up with spiritual evidence to show I had no such experience I'll listen.

And you should simply be known as Mr. Missed-It b/c you miss the point (deliberately?) every time. You haven't demonstrated there is such a thing as "the spiritual". You just keep CLAIMING it over and over. Absurd.

I call bullshit on something someone said earlier:

Quote:[...] I can imagine that if God exists, he's constantly causing himself to exist...

What? What does that even mean? Existence being caused, what? I just don't understand, and perhaps I'm not meant to. Makes about as much sense as saying that God exists non-spatially and non-temporally. Just informationally vacuous and... weird.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And yet you want me to prove the existence of a deity you claim is not real even though you cannot prove the existence of an actual infinity. Apparently there's one set of rules for believers and another atheists.

You've missed the mark once again (this time it's the Straw Man fallacy). I never said "it's not real" and never claimed your alleged deity doesn't exist. Get it straight there bub. What I have said (elsewhere) is that there is no good reason for thinking there is some deity (especially one that cares about us, or interferes in human affairs). Get the difference?

But of course, you haven't demonstrated any of that. It's the perpetual "Because I say so" Christian fallacy. "I had an experience and concluded it was Yahweh. And you can't disprove my conclusion. So I'm going to just keep believing until someone proves me wrong. Neener, neener, neener!" If you wish to continue being like a child (Matt 18) - and just as gullible - go ahead. But just leave the grown up thinking to someone else, since you can't handle it.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Did I say anything about an infinite god? For that matter did I propose any secondary attributes to the supreme being?

HAHA. So you're proposing a "supreme being" that's not a God by most definitions? Hilarious. Way to dodge.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So you can believe in actual infinities despite, the logical inconsistencies such a belief produces, because its possible. But I'm not allowed to believe in the possibility of a god that is in no way inconsistent with the known universe. You guys really think you can have it both ways.

Once again, Mr. Strawman. Listen up and pay attention. I never claimed I believed in "actual infinities" (by your definition). All I said was that if you can claim a "God" actual infinity then we can claim a global universe infinity. The door swings both ways big guy. We have no good reason to accept either claim. And what we ought to be doing is withholding judgment and waiting til further evidence comes in. But you and your credulous religulousness won't accept that b/c you can't stand agnosticism. Well, too bad. That's not my fault. You should admit when you don't know something and stop trying to stretch the edges of knowledge to fit what you assumed from the outset. We know damn well why you're making this judgment, b/c in a minute you're going to start smuggling in "Now here's why I know we should believe the bible!" NOPE. Your standard of evidence is way too (hypocritically) low dude.

(April 9, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: Unfair, you calling unfair, now that's . You want physical proof of the spiritual, now that I think about it, you're being unreasonable and dishonest, especially when I've admitted I can't give any to people who close themselves off to the possibility. I have not tried to prove to you that my experiences are real, I made the statement that my experiences are real and you try to tell me I'm deluded. You have no spiritual evidence to the contrary of what I stated. When you come up with spiritual evidence to show I had no such experience I'll listen.

As no one has ever demonstrated the existence of anything 'spiritual' in a way that makes it objectively true, then I have to regard 'spiritual' evidence as made up and nonsensical.

I want physical proof of the being you insist created this physical world. How unfair. And way to dodge the content of the post once again, by the way.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: How childish can you be? Since you cannot easily refute the argument for a genetic supreme being, you move the goal post to prove a very specific deity.

Since you cannot prove the existence of your specific supreme being, you resort to failing to prove the existence of a generic supreme being in which you don't even believe.

I'm not childish just because you suck at this.

(April 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm) Wrote: Now you are just acting like a bully. I have proved what I wanted to prove. Atheism is not a rational choice.

Note to self: asking a person to prove the claims they make is 'bullying'. If you can't prove your assertions and you don't want them challenged, this is not the place for you, because I will do it.

(April 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm) Wrote: Boy, you’re making an awful lot of assumptions about my religion in order to avoid the discussion at hand. What makes you think my religion teaches that all other revelatory experiences are delusionary? God reaches out to people wherever they are belief-wise.

Billions of people adhere to religions which contradict yours. Millions of 'revelatory' experiences teach people 'truths' which do not coincide with yours at all. Your religion insists that there are no other gods. All of these revelations which do not agree with scripture are, according to that scripture, false. That's not an assumption. That's the first commandment.

You 'know' your revelations are true because you have an excessively overinflated idea of how much your own opinion is worth.

(April 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm) Wrote: The only intellectually valid thing is chose the an equally unconfirmed explanation you prefer. And you dare to accuse others of confirmation bias? You’re acting hypocritically.

I believe in nothing which is not supported by verifiable physical evidence, and my conclusion is a result, not a cause. I am an atheist who came to my conclusion after giving your religion a long and fair try. That is not confirmation bias because atheism was not the position I initially held, nor the one I attempted to achieve by becoming a Christian. You assume your God exists, make up shit to justify it, and call it 'evidence' so that you don't feel like the intellectual dwarf you are for believing in something which is in no way objectively observable.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I believe in nothing which is not supported by verifiable physical evidence, and my conclusion is a result, not a cause.

Which means you will not consider anything that does not conform to your physical reduction bias.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I am an atheist who came to my conclusion after giving your religion a long and fair try. That is not confirmation bias because atheism was not the position I initially held.

I was an atheist for many many years before I became a Christian. Your one-upsmanship has missed its target.

---

(April 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm)median Wrote: We know damn well why you're making this judgment, b/c in a minute you're going to start smuggling in "Now here's why I know we should believe the bible!"

Not really. But thank you for sharing what you most fear.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm)median Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And yet you want me to prove the existence of a deity you claim is not real even though you cannot prove the existence of an actual infinity. Apparently there's one set of rules for believers and another atheists.

You've missed the mark once again (this time it's the Straw Man fallacy). I never said "it's not real" and never claimed your alleged deity doesn't exist. Get it straight there bub. What I have said (elsewhere) is that there is no good reason for thinking there is some deity (especially one that cares about us, or interferes in human affairs). Get the difference?

But of course, you haven't demonstrated any of that. It's the perpetual "Because I say so" Christian fallacy. "I had an experience and concluded it was Yahweh. And you can't disprove my conclusion. So I'm going to just keep believing until someone proves me wrong. Neener, neener, neener!" If you wish to continue being like a child (Matt 18) - and just as gullible - go ahead. But just leave the grown up thinking to someone else, since you can't handle it.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Did I say anything about an infinite god? For that matter did I propose any secondary attributes to the supreme being?

HAHA. So you're proposing a "supreme being" that's not a God by most definitions? Hilarious. Way to dodge.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So you can believe in actual infinities despite, the logical inconsistencies such a belief produces, because its possible. But I'm not allowed to believe in the possibility of a god that is in no way inconsistent with the known universe. You guys really think you can have it both ways.

Once again, Mr. Strawman. Listen up and pay attention. I never claimed I believed in "actual infinities" (by your definition). All I said was that if you can claim a "God" actual infinity then we can claim a global universe infinity. The door swings both ways big guy. We have no good reason to accept either claim. And what we ought to be doing is withholding judgment and waiting til further evidence comes in. But you and your credulous religulousness won't accept that b/c you can't stand agnosticism. Well, too bad. That's not my fault. You should admit when you don't know something and stop trying to stretch the edges of knowledge to fit what you assumed from the outset. We know damn well why you're making this judgment, b/c in a minute you're going to start smuggling in "Now here's why I know we should believe the bible!" NOPE. Your standard of evidence is way too (hypocritically) low dude.

I am ok with your dismissal of " Yahweh" as it is being taught by Jews and Christian. But if this "GOD" is just a living thing that we are part of? And that because we are a complex protein some of the bags of proteins "sensed it"? It clearly is not an "overseer" type thing. But it might be a Thing.

(April 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm)median Wrote: We know damn well why you're making this judgment, b/c in a minute you're going to start smuggling in "Now here's why I know we should believe the bible!"

Not really. But thank you for sharing what you most fear.

LOL. So now you're both a liar AND and asshole. NICE. Keep fearing your Santa Claus Mr. Credulity. Bring out that "most feared" bible of yours, here, and see how far it gets you.

---

(April 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I believe in nothing which is not supported by verifiable physical evidence, and my conclusion is a result, not a cause.

Which means you will not consider anything that does not conform to your physical reduction bias.

"Which means you will not consider anything that does not conform to your immaterial superstition bias. Neener, neener, neener third grader." The confirmation bias is all yours there Mr. "supernatural". Since you haven't demonstrated there is any such thing as a "non-physical thing", a "spirit", let alone a deity named Yahweh (or anything else that is supposedly "immaterial") - your assertions are no different than any other wacko bald assertion of the superstitious "mystical", "magical", "premonition", "unicorn" (indistinguishable from things that do not exist - Does your God actually manifest in the physical world? If so, it's detectable). Yet you still attempt to maintain this credulity in spite of all refutation. Yay. Just in case you hadn't noticed, arguments alone don't get you there. Anyone can concoct some grandiose "consistent" argument for just about any nonsense idea (and then point the finger at everyone who disagrees, crying, "you're biased against me! Whah!"). Big whoop. Stop crying and start demonstrating. Perhaps start with John 14 and Mark 16 for example (those "greater works" you should be doing, instead of the twist religion tap dance).

(April 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I am an atheist who came to my conclusion after giving your religion a long and fair try. That is not confirmation bias because atheism was not the position I initially held.

I was an atheist for many many years before I became a Christian. Your one-upsmanship has missed its target.

Really? What made you give up your rational mind, in exchange for superstition and gullibility?

p.s. - Nice dodging of Ryan's first points.

Don't we all just feel that warm, "love your neighbor/love your enemies", Christian spirit of humility from these guys?? LOL. The fundy spin and rationalizing continues...

Ryantology Wrote:I believe in nothing which is not supported by verifiable physical evidence, and my conclusion is a result, not a cause.

What is the verifiable physical evidence that leads you to believe that you should only believe what can be supported by verifiable physical evidence?

(April 10, 2013 at 12:21 pm)Tex Wrote:

Ryantology Wrote:I believe in nothing which is not supported by verifiable physical evidence, and my conclusion is a result, not a cause.

What is the verifiable physical evidence that leads you to believe that you should only believe what can be supported by verifiable physical evidence?

As usual, you apologists love to miss the actual meaning of a statement and instead jump to attack anything foreign. There are plenty who hold that statements are not "things". Like numbers, their ontological status has not been defined. Thus Ryan could very easily be talking about believing in actual "things". Didn't look at that one before you leaped, did you? Statements are only as good as what is meant by those statements.