High there

[pineapplebunnybounce]

This is the intro thread, so I'm saying this in the most polite way possible: Christianity's god is not such a big deal and is not all that different from other gods.

[Jackalope]

Herman, you are certainly correct that it would be irrational no not believe in something known to be and demonstrably true.

Your challenge, and where such claims break, is the italicized portion.

[ParCutz]

In my introduction post I wanted to know if there were some good TV shows without the bull. Now that I found this site, I may not need to watch anymore television. Comedic and dramatic. The religious folk are so entertaining. I am guessing that Father Herman's church did not make their soul quota, so he is trying his darnedest to meet it any which way but loose. Good luck in here! Oh, hi, Father Herman.

[Fruity]

In my introduction post I wanted to know if there were some good TV shows without the bull. Now that I found this site, I may not need to watch anymore television. Comedic and dramatic. The religious folk are so entertaining. I am guessing that Father Herman's church did not make their soul quota, so he is trying his darnedest to meet it any which way but loose. Good luck in here! Oh, hi, Father Herman.

lol Oh, you are going to be entertained here. It's my hobby.

[Angrboda]

[downbeatplumb]

downbeatplumb made a mistake. He thought that all deities are fictional. Fine; people make mistakes. But there is one Deity that’s real. So the proposition there is no God is false and its opposite is true. It should be obvious that you should believe that which is true.

I made no mistake.

[Father Herman]

[jesupeoplechurch]

High there,

I am new in this forum. This is my first post for all, Just say Hi.
It's so high.

[Zen Badger]

Hi. ...
Nice place you got here.

H

We like it.
The wallpaper is a bit tacky but the bar is well provisioned.
Pull up a stool and regal us with tales of your version of reality.

[Father Herman]

We're coming to the end of HIGH THERE 1.


Dear Cookie (post 60)

1. So you don’t like my tone. Alas! I’ve lost a reader! But …

But of course you don’t like my tone: I'm a theist. Stuff that you wouldn’t bat an eye at if it came from an atheist is of course intolerable coming from a theist. Maybe you should avoid my posts.

But you're a moderator. Maybe you feel obliged to read every bit of drivel that passes through these pages.

I'm certainly not going to change my “tone” to suit every individual. Maybe you should just have me liquidated.

If it helps, I'm not going to call anyone a “liar” (post 65); much less a “pervert” (post 33). So tell us—forgetting anything as ambiguous as the “tone:” How do you feel about the content in those posts?

And … what is it that a moderator does, exactly?

But it raises a question for me. If I author a thread, what assurance do I have that it's not going to be filled with an atheist “tone”—all the sneering, snide remarks, name-calling, crudity—all the inanity that atheism is heir to?

Please. Get back to me on that one.


2. If there’s some specific assertion I've made that you’d like me to address in some future thread (or as you put it, to “justify or abandon”) —please: just name it.

3. As for “Pascal’s wager:” you obviously have some fascination with it. But I'm afraid it’s a fascination I don’t share. “Pascal’s wager” has never impressed me much.

But you want to hear my reasons.

Unfortunately, I haven’t given a thought to “Pascal’s wager” in at least forty years. “Pascal’s wager” is irrelevant to the subjects that currently interest me and consequently it's never referred to in the literature that I read.

So I have no motivation for looking into “Pascal’s wager.” Except—

Except that you're interested; and perhaps you want me to help you think it through. If this is so then I will take the time to see if there’s anything new that philosophers are saying about “Pascal’s wager.” But Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia are about as far as I'm willing to go.

Perhaps you're in pain, suffering from some terminal illness, and need answers right away. In that case of course I will help you.


4. Then you mention evidence—that’s a bold step for an atheist in the 21st century.

Do you want the kind of currently available evidence that has changed the minds of former atheists? Or do you want antiques like 19th century Darwinism, or “Pascal’s wager?”

We're now in the 21st century. Any atheist raising the subject of evidence is lingering in the 19th century.

(I won't be so patronizing as to say that you're “out of step with reality.” —But you know: we're both going to have to forgive this kind of rhetoric, like it or not. it's just too easy to do and too hard to avoid. Still (to mention this again) rhetoric is one thing—crudity and stupidity are something else altogether.)

5. We'll take up the subject of the definition of atheism as contrasted to what individual atheists assert in some future thread.

How many future threads have I generated already? —and this is just my first introduction.

H