A problem with the word "atheist"

[Little Rik]

Did your parents have any children that lived?

Look Gaw.  

I see you down the pub later.  

I am a bit busy at the moment.  

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did your parents have any children that lived?

Look Gaw.  

I see you down the pub later.  

I am a bit busy at the moment.  

I'd really enjoy being in close proximity to you.

[Huggy Bear]

My purpose isn't to convince you of anything, nor would I want to, my purpose here is to counter nonsensical arguments.

Really?  Because I’ve never seen you counter even one of the hundred or so fallacious arguments trotted out here daily by your fellow theists.  So, you don’t feel you have any responsibility at all to foster a positive argument for your position, but you think we are responsible for counter-arguments?  How does that work exactly?

Not that I haven't countered theist arguments (There's RobertE, and not to mention there's plenty of theists I disagree with politically), I have made it pretty clear that I disagree with 100% of denominational doctrine, hence the "I believe in God, not religion" under  'religious views'. Furthermore what would countering theist arguments accomplish on an atheist discussion forum?

Ultimately it's up you to find out for yourself if God exists, as long as you can say you sincerely searched for an answer to that question and can say without any doubts that God doesn't exist... I'm cool with that, Just don't go to your grave with something as weak as "I don't know".

It’s not that hard, really.  There is no evidence for any god, therefore I have no rational reason to believe one exists.

 

There's no evidence of life in other galaxies, so is it rational to conclude that life exist nowhere except on Earth?

Two years at this forum, and I haven’t been presented with even a meager shred of evidence to make me to think otherwise.  If a Theist can come to me with something, I’m all ears.

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1619052

---

Okay, so 'gullible' it REALLY is then, Huggy.  People saw it with their own eyes after they were explicitly directed to do so.  The pastor literally TELLS the audience that there is a light hovering over someone's head, and he doesn't even stop there.  He baldly suggests to them,  "just like in the picture," specifically so that none of his rapt believers miss the biblical parallel he's trying to draw. This is common stage hypnotism.  Highly suggestable folks who are eager to believe are easy to manipulate.

Shame on you for being taken by such foolishness.  Please, quit while your behind.

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE! You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device  

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja  put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

If you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

And to answer your earlier question:

Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?

Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's  seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

In the audio recording I posted



if you turn on the caption you'll see Branham state:  

I'm just waiting. If He don't tell me, I can't say a thing.

also

Can't you see that Light? Looky here. The amber Light like you see in the picture… There It is right over the lady. It's moving around. Forgive me if I ask you that. This is another dimension. I realize that I'm in an auditorium. And I realize I'm looking at a woman, and she's praying, and I'm watching her. I never see her in my life. But I can… If I would to tell you by the Holy Spirit what you're praying about, you'll know whether it's the truth or not.

Then Braham goes on to tell people their names and what they're thinking (at the beginning of the clip, in the interest of transparency, he pointed out all the people he knew).

Branham never claimed to have any special powers, there is something there that is showing him these things.

The Carl Sagan states in the video (in his example of interacting with being from another dimension, in this case 2d creature (square) interacting with a 3d creature (apple)).

Starting at around 3:04

So the square, as time goes on, sees a set of objects mysteriously appear from nowhere, inside a closed room and change their shape dramatically. His only conclusion could be that he's gone bonkers.

Well the apple might be a little annoyed at this conclusion, and so in not a friendly gesture from dimension to dimension, makes a contact with the square from below and sends our flat creature fluttering and spinning above flatland.

At first the square has no idea whats happening, he's terribly confused this is utterly outside his experience, but after a while he comes to realize that he his seeing inside closed rooms in flatland, he's seeing inside his fellow flat creatures, he is seeing flatland from a perspective no one has ever seen it before to his knowledge.

Getting into another dimension provides as an incidental benefit a kind of x-ray vision.

Does not Carl Sagan describe what Branham was describing in the audio clip? Did not Branham state that he entered another dimension?

This is another dimension. I realize that I'm in an auditorium. And I realize I'm looking at a woman, and she's praying, and I'm watching her. I never see her in my life. But I can…

If I would to tell you by the Holy Spirit what you're praying about, you'll know whether it's the truth or not. You're praying about a rupture. That is right. Also an intestinal trouble, complications. If that is right, raise up your hand like this? If I'm a stranger to you, raise you other hand up. There's a certain sign of His resurrection.

She touched something. Is that right?

What about you all? Do you believe? Spinal trouble.

I don't know you, do I? We're strangers to one another. You got trouble in your spine. What if God would tell me who you were, would you believe me to be His prophet? Miss Hollanbach. That's right. That helped your friend setting next to you. I don't know you either, but God knows you. But you're not praying for yourself; you're praying for somebody else. If I tell you what it is, would you believe me to be His prophet? You're praying for a nephew that's an alcoholic. That's right. Raise your hand.

 
Carl Sagan described it perfectly, why is it so hard for you guys to see it?

---

Refusing to accept evidence does not equate to no evidence being presented.

[Whateverist]

Really?  Because I’ve never seen you counter even one of the hundred or so fallacious arguments trotted out here daily by your fellow theists.  So, you don’t feel you have any responsibility at all to foster a positive argument for your position, but you think we are responsible for counter-arguments?  How does that work exactly?

Not that I haven't countered theist arguments (There's RobertE, and not to mention there's plenty of theists I disagree with politically), I have made it pretty clear that I disagree with 100% of denominational doctrine, hence the "I believe in God, not religion" under  'religious views'. Furthermore what would countering theist arguments accomplish on an atheist discussion forum?

It’s not that hard, really.  There is no evidence for any god, therefore I have no rational reason to believe one exists.

 

There's no evidence of life in other galaxies, so is it rational to conclude that life exist nowhere except on Earth?

Two years at this forum, and I haven’t been presented with even a meager shred of evidence to make me to think otherwise.  If a Theist can come to me with something, I’m all ears.

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1619052

---

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE! You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device  

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja  put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

If you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

And to answer your earlier question:


Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's  seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

In the audio recording I posted



if you turn on the caption you'll see Branham state:  


also

Then Braham goes on to tell people their names and what they're thinking (at the beginning of the clip, in the interest of transparency, he pointed out all the people he knew).

Branham never claimed to have any special powers, there is something there that is showing him these things.

The Carl Sagan states in the video (in his example of interacting with being from another dimension, in this case 2d creature (square) interacting with a 3d creature (apple)).

Starting at around 3:04






Does not Carl Sagan describe what Branham was describing in the audio clip? Did not Branham state that he entered another dimension?

 
Carl Sagan described it perfectly, why is it so hard for you guys to see it?

---

Refusing to accept evidence does not equate to no evidence being presented.

I'm pretty sure she had in mind worthwhile evidence, something justified .. not a grainy old youtube video, no offense.

[Huggy Bear]

Not that I haven't countered theist arguments (There's RobertE, and not to mention there's plenty of theists I disagree with politically), I have made it pretty clear that I disagree with 100% of denominational doctrine, hence the "I believe in God, not religion" under  'religious views'. Furthermore what would countering theist arguments accomplish on an atheist discussion forum?

 

There's no evidence of life in other galaxies, so is it rational to conclude that life exist nowhere except on Earth?

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1619052

---

---

Refusing to accept evidence does not equate to no evidence being presented.

I'm pretty sure she had in mind worthwhile evidence, something justified .. not a grainy old youtube video, no offense.

The evidence was worthwhile enough for the The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, to investigate, subject to scientific testing and file a report on, so...

[LadyForCamus]

Really?  Because I’ve never seen you counter even one of the hundred or so fallacious arguments trotted out here daily by your fellow theists.  So, you don’t feel you have any responsibility at all to foster a positive argument for your position, but you think we are responsible for counter-arguments?  How does that work exactly?

Not that I haven't countered theist arguments (There's RobertE, and not to mention there's plenty of theists I disagree with politically), I have made it pretty clear that I disagree with 100% of denominational doctrine, hence the "I believe in God, not religion" under  'religious views'. Furthermore what would countering theist arguments accomplish on an atheist discussion forum?

I dunno...establish integrity?  I mean, if you’re here to counter bad arguments in the name of logic, I’d think you’d want to be countering all of them, regardless of which side they come from.  

It’s not that hard, really.  There is no evidence for any god, therefore I have no rational reason to believe one exists.

 

There's no evidence of life in other galaxies, so is it rational to conclude that life exist nowhere except on Earth?[/quote]

False analogy.  We actually have evidence of life existing here, now don’t we?

Two years at this forum, and I haven’t been presented with even a meager shred of evidence to make me to think otherwise.  If a Theist can come to me with something, I’m all ears.

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1619052

---

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE! You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device  

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja  put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

If you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

And to answer your earlier question:


Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's  seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

In the audio recording I posted



if you turn on the caption you'll see Branham state:  


also

Then Braham goes on to tell people their names and what they're thinking (at the beginning of the clip, in the interest of transparency, he pointed out all the people he knew).

Branham never claimed to have any special powers, there is something there that is showing him these things.

The Carl Sagan states in the video (in his example of interacting with being from another dimension, in this case 2d creature (square) interacting with a 3d creature (apple)).

Starting at around 3:04






Does not Carl Sagan describe what Branham was describing in the audio clip? Did not Branham state that he entered another dimension?

 
Carl Sagan described it perfectly, why is it so hard for you guys to see it?

---

Refusing to accept evidence does not equate to no evidence being presented.

LOL.  I don’t know why I bother.  Yes, thank you, actually, for linking to that stupid thread so that anyone following along can check out your earth-shattering evidence of light.

[Cyberman]

I'm pretty sure she had in mind worthwhile evidence, something justified .. not a grainy old youtube video, no offense.

The evidence was worthwhile enough for the The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, to investigate, subject to scientific testing and file a report on, so...

Was it worthwhile for them to draw any conclusions?

[The Grand Nudger]

What an enormous coincidence.....no matter how many times I pop out and pop back in, or how many pages pass..the problem with the word atheist is still religious dipshits.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What an enormous coincidence.....no matter how many times I pop out and pop back in, or how many pages pass..the problem with the word atheist is still religious dipshits.

Not much for deviating from the program, are they.

[Huggy Bear]

Not that I haven't countered theist arguments (There's RobertE, and not to mention there's plenty of theists I disagree with politically), I have made it pretty clear that I disagree with 100% of denominational doctrine, hence the "I believe in God, not religion" under  'religious views'. Furthermore what would countering theist arguments accomplish on an atheist discussion forum?

I dunno...establish integrity?  I mean, if you’re here to counter bad arguments in the name of logic, I’d think you’d want to be countering all of them, regardless of which side they come from.

 

I already explained that I do counter arguments from both sides, it's just that the majority of my disagreements with theists  here are political, not so much religious. So how about we finish addressing God's existence before we start arguing any religious doctrine.

It’s not that hard, really.  There is no evidence for any god, therefore I have no rational reason to believe one exists.

 There's no evidence of life in other galaxies, so is it rational to conclude that life exist nowhere except on Earth?

False analogy.  We actually have evidence of life existing here, now don’t we?

How is that a false analogy? Are you saying you believe in extraterrestrial life because life exists on earth?

So then how can you not believe that because life exists in this dimension it can exist in other dimensions?

Two years at this forum, and I haven’t been presented with even a meager shred of evidence to make me to think otherwise.  If a Theist can come to me with something, I’m all ears.

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51117-p...pid1619052

---

---

Refusing to accept evidence does not equate to no evidence being presented.

LOL.  I don’t know why I bother.  Yes, thank you, actually, for linking to that stupid thread so that anyone following along can check out your earth-shattering evidence of light.

Again as I have explained many times, if you were to take a picture of a being from another dimension it would appear to you as gibberish.

What's interesting though is the eyewitness account of Marilyn Hickey whom described a light that looked like a "wheel within a wheel" at 2:05 in the video.

---

---

That is exactly how you'd describe a 4th dimensional object.