Why be good?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're absolutely wrong. Why do you think I have that stuff online? I've had this "atheist in a foxhole" conversation several times before, and you're not the first theist to question what I've said about it -- hell, you're not even the first theist here at this forum; you can ask Drich about that. So I didn't expect at all to be accepted at face value, and that is exactly why I have this sort of stuff loaded onto my Tinypic.  If you go and look at the upload dates, you'll see they long predate this questioning.

Parkers, I do not and have never denied your service or your testimony about your experiences. So, I'm not sure why you keep referring me to your service records....I BELIEVE YOU.

That's the whole point of this...I can believe what you say about your service, your experiences with "atheists in foxholes" and the authenticity of the documents you have scanned and put online, etc.

I don't know you from Adam, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in spite of the fact that you are highly motivated to prove me wrong (above just about all others in the forum have been out to do so since the day I arrived - and that's saying something).

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

You're still missing the point, which is that I do not expect you to accept my word at face value. I expect you, and anyone else who claims to be intelligent, to ask for evidence if such is pertinent. It clearly is pertinent when you're pulling your Perry Mason act about asking me if I'd swear to it: here, I'll show you, you need not take my word is my response.

That is because I understand that the onus is upon me to demonstrate my claim.

When you can present evidence in proportion to the extraordinary claims made in the NT, we will once more have the basis for conversation. Until then, your comparison of the NT author's writings to the service history of any poster here is fatuous -- because our claims are documented.

I feel sort of embarrassed for you that you don't see such a simple point as the one I'm making here. I'm not accusing you of wronging me. I have not accused you of doubting my service. What I have done is show you what is required to evidence a claim. I'm saying that you don't understand something so simple as standards of evidence.

[Crossless2.0]

Parkers, I do not and have never denied your service or your testimony about your experiences. So, I'm not sure why you keep referring me to your service records....I BELIEVE YOU.

That's the whole point of this...I can believe what you say about your service, your experiences with "atheists in foxholes" and the authenticity of the documents you have scanned and put online, etc.

I don't know you from Adam, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in spite of the fact that you are highly motivated to prove me wrong (above just about all others in the forum have been out to do so since the day I arrived - and that's saying something).

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

You're still missing the point, which is that I do not expect you to accept my word at face value. I expect you, and anyone else who claims to be intelligent, to ask for evidence if such is pertinent. It clearly is pertinent when you're pulling your Perry Mason act about asking me if I'd swear to it: here, I'll show you, you need not take my word is my response.

That is because I understand that the onus is upon me to demonstrate my claim.

When you can present evidence in proportion to the extraordinary claims made in the NT, we will once more have the basis for conversation. Until then, your comparison of the NT author's writings to the service history of any poster here is fatuous -- because our claims are documented.

I feel sort of embarrassed for you that you don't see such a simple point as the one I'm making here.  I'm not accusing you of wronging me. I have not accused you of doubting my service.  What I have done is show you what is required to evidence a claim. I'm saying that you don't understand something so simple as standards of evidence.

Don't kid yourself, PT.  He understands it.  He also (like all apologists) understands that he doesn't have the goods, which is why he twists, turns, and obfuscates every chance he can.  This thread could go on another 100 pages, and it will not have budged an inch from where it is now.  Think Catholic Snowtracks.

[Randy Carson]

So did Luke.

I'm sorry, who?  You mean the pseudographical writer who wrote "Luke's" gospel?

Rhetorical question.  I really don't want you to answer.

I'm sure you don't. Your boat is full of holes, taking on water and you can't bail fast enough.

Luke. You know the undisputed author of the gospel and the Book of Acts? Yeah, just keep telling yourself that Luke is pseudographical. You might even want to dig out some of those books you read a few years ago and page through them again...just to settle your rattled nerves. Maybe a quick refresher will remind you of how "intellectually satisfying"   your atheist position is.

So, if it were undeniably demonstrated that the gospels are true, you wouldn't care?

Why not?

Because I refuse to worship evil and call it good, that's why.  The reason I am no longer a Christian has nothing to do with the veracity of that foul book you worship.  It has to do with the contents of it, and the nature of what you and your ilk deem to be "salvation".[/quote]

Ah....a former Christian, is it? A convert to atheism. You know what they say about converts...and I am one.

Well, damn. I didn't see that coming.

I'm letting that sink in...

I gotta ask:

1. What denomination?
2. Why didja leave?

I'm not going to mock you, CD...just trying to understand what happened.

This is kinda anti-climactic, but I guess you know we don't actually worship a book, right? Cause one, I'm Catholic - not a sola scripturist, and two, Protestants don't worship a book, either.

WE SERVE THE LIVING GOD.

I've already told you on at least two occasions I'm completely uninterested in having this particular discussion.  Why do you disrespect me by trying to drag me into it nonetheless?

It's your forum, CD. You don't have to respond to my posts. But something tells me that deep inside, this is a conversation that you very much want and need to have.

My agenda? Well, duh. I'm a Christian posting in an atheist forum. What do you think my agenda is? To exchange cookie recipes? 

I am listening and responding to the best of the posts (I have to keep my waders on, though).

For example, only after a half dozen or so epithet-laced personal attacks did you finally decide to write a coherent response to me that I could respond to.

Why not be calm and reasonable in your discussions from the get-go?

Because you argue in bad faith and you lie.  I have nothing but contempt for the kind of intellectual dishonesty you display.

I haven't lied once in this forum. I have been misunderstood and misrepresented by people of ill-will who are eager to believe anything about me. But I have never once said anything that I knew to be untrue. (Which covers the possibility that I'm stupid and sometimes say things that aren't true without knowing it!)

I told you to go fuck yourself and that you were a lying bucket of shit, because... wait for it... you misrepresented the position of three of us, despite our positions being uncomplicated and buried within all of about a dozen words each.  I don't buy your apology for a second.  Your misrepresentations and strawmen have been *legion* since you started posting here.

You did, CD. You definitely told me to go do that. As for the rest, I'm not convinced you're capable of being completely objective about anything I say.

If it makes you feel any better, the sentiment is still there - particularly because you seem intent on dragging me into a discussion that I have no interest in having.  You're a liar and an ass, Randy.  I have no use for you, and nothing but contempt.

If you shoot straight with me, CD, I promise that you will get nothing but honest answers from me to any and all questions you ask.

Fire when ready.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh? To me, they are just login names and avatars...I can't confirm their identities. I'm not likely to meet any of them in person.

Feel free to PM me for my phone number. I will happily confirm my existence for you vocally. And if you give me ten or so minutes, I'll post a picture of me with my USAF Alert Zone line badge, and some close-ups of that line badge. I don't have my Class-A blouse handy with my ribbons and badge; when I returned to Texas I left that, as my most important possession, with my son, so that should anything happen to me, my son will have a memento of the old man's service.

1. Why should I believe anything that CD, Steel and Parkers (the boys) have said about their near-death experiences or speaking with others who had NDE's?

I did not claim to have an NDE. I have never lost brain activity to the point where the docs thought I was dead ('course, they never saw me on a Friday night back in the day). I've never been close to fatally injured.

What I said is that as a firefighter in the Air Force, there have been a couple of times where I was wondering if I might see another day. I linked you to a report of the first incident of that sort in my service career, but that wasn't the first time in my life I've feared for my life, nor the last. I can send you a pic of my left ear, which got bitten off in a fight with a guy who thought I was fucking his old lady and tried to kill me with his hands and some copper conduit. I can perhaps find a newspaper report of one of the two times that I was the victim of an armed robbery.

But I have never had a near-death experience in the sense that that acronym is normally used.

2. Why should I believe the people who claim to have met the boys? They are friends and BIASED.

Many of the servicemen I served with were not my friends, but they would still attest to my service.

3. How do the people who have met the boys know with certainty that the boys are being truthful about their experiences?

They could read the newspapers. They could look up specific incidents and units on the Internet. I've busted a couple of guys online who claim to have been in combat with this or that unit. Such stuff is not hard to penetrate if you know what to look for.

5. I have been told repeatedly in this forum that eyewitness testimony is the weakest forum of testimony; yet, here we are...relying on the eyewitness testimony of the boys (and Kitty, too, here) that what they experienced and heard is true. Isn't that weak testimony?

No, at least one of the people you've mentioned -- namely, me -- has presented objective evidence of his claim, and in the process demonstrated to you exactly what would be handy to support your point. The fact that you're avoiding that point doesn't speak well to your integrity.

So, you see, objections that are raised about the reliability of the gospels could be raised against the boys, but no one here doubts the latter. Why is the former any less credible?

Because our claims have evidence which is strong in proportion to the claim, while yours has no evidence at all, even though the claim is simply, and literally, incredible.

Thank you, Parkers. Discusson is much more persuasive than simply hurling foul language at me.

Because unlike our experiences, they aren't verifiable.

What do you have in mind when you say "verifiable"?

And how could any member of this forum verify the experiences that any of you three had?[/quote]

I've already told you. Aren't you reading what I write?

Agreed. That would add credibility (for the record, I do not doubt your service record). But would that help us to know what was in CD's mind when he was facing death? Would that prove beyond a doubt that you never thought of God when you personally were confronted with death? Would that eliminate the possibility that the marines with whom Mike spoke weren't simply trying to maintain their "tough guy" image?

Well, that's setting the bar for evidence too high, and that's a bar you cannot meet yourself. How do you know the Apostles weren't spinning bullshit stories in order to protect their cash cow, and only claiming that Jesus was divine?

You don't. So either hold yourself to that same standard, or abandon this line of argument. Choose now.

All we really have is your testimony (oral if given to friends in person and written in your service records and this forum) about what you saw, heard and experienced personally and from others.

Your claim to be telling the truth is strong...just as strong as the same claim made by the Apostle John at the end of his service record.

Actually, you have archives and independent witnesses to interview, unlike any Gospel writer you could care to mention.

But we're not talking about Jesus' claim to be the Son of God. Not yet, anyway. We're only trying to establish the claim of reliability for the service records of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

... and at this point, you have no independent verification, unlike our military service records and unit-member interviews.

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than this one that you're mounting, Pigeon.

You are truly a man of many talents, Parkers.

You ain't seen the half of it. Wait until you ignore my points again.

[The Grand Nudger]

Uh oh, your ministry is imploding Randy.  Your convert quota is going to suffer.  I don't know, I think I'd change tactics if I were you.  

Sadly, you may be correct in many ways. 

But, I'm just planting seeds, dude. To do that, I have to break up some rocky ground, first.

Now -there's a metaphor I can love!  Trouble is that you aren't breaking ground, you're compacting it.  You know what grows in compacted ground?  Weeds, not crops.  Are you contributing the the weeds or do you wish to sow the bounty of our lord, christ jesus? Are you a planter of wheat or a planter of thistles?  

[Esquilax]

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

You probably responded to my last post by now, and if you did I'll get to it later when I have a more substantive chunk of time, but I do need to ask this one question: do you just accept every claim until you have evidence proving it wrong? Do you not see that this will force you to believe in mutually contradictory claims? I mean, you have no evidence to the contrary of every other religious claim, so the fact that you're specifically a Catholic kinda makes your claim to how belief should work suspect to begin with.

You're shifting the burden of proof, Randy. It's not up to everyone else to prove a claim wrong, it's up to the claimant to prove it true, which is what we've kinda all offered to do, in one way or another. For some strange reason you're insisting that we ignore all of that, all the better evidence we're willing to provide, and assess the claims as true based solely on the fact that someone said so and you can't prove them wrong. But your credulity only extends to you, it's not binding to the rest of us; we're prepared to offer better evidence. You don't then get to say that we're all accepting these claims as face value, because that's not what's going on at all.

[Ravenshire]

have you ever heard of Google? I found 18 atheists who converted to Catholicism on this page in less than one minute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_con...atholicism

If we consider all of Christianity and theism/deism, the number goes up dramatically.

Huh.  That's interesting: you found 18 converts from atheism... where exactly?  It's not denoted on the page; you'd have to go to each individual person's page to find that out, which there's no way you could do in under a minute.  You're not even trying to hide your lies anymore.

His wife.

... where did Cain's wife come from?

There are seven where the word "atheist" is listed in the short description. So, give him 7. That's still double-digits short of 18. Yep. The Randy Catholic is another liar for gawd.

[Ravenshire]

Becca-

Go to the page I linked. type control-f and enter the word "atheist" in the box that appears in the window at the top of the page. Hit enter.

You can hit the down arrow to go from name to name.

Or am I lying?

I did exactly that. Seven people. Liar.

[Ravenshire]

But, I'm just planting seeds, dude. To do that, I have to break up some rocky ground, first.

The arrogance of a christer on a mission knows no bounds.

[Ravenshire]

Think Catholic Snowtracks.

Now that's just mean!