Silly Atheists.

[Gwaithmir]

MK, does it make sense human books can contain proofs, but that a book from Erú Ilúvatar cannot contain proofs?

Every verse in there is a proof, but you have to understand it, and if you can understand the verses which are signs of Erú and their place in The Silmarillion and can understand each Cycle and it's place in the Book, then the dark veil will be removed by Erú's permission.

It's not circular reasoning to believe Erú if he exists can prove everything he says and fabricate and blend together a series of words, that interpret each other and all hold on to each other, and manifest one another, and that his book can be designed to be endless in knowledge, and that in time and with study and reflecting, a person can see that indeed it is beyond capability of a human.

And so whether The Silmarillion is that book or not, at least, acknowledge, that if Erú exists, he can prove things and not only that, but prove all that he speaks, and only speak things that are proofs of his and that will give insights through reflection.

Erú can bring about majestic wonders not only through physical miracles, but through words. This is a rational position.

[Reltzik]

Okay, lemme go through the OP and address it point by point.

1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

The antecedent does not apply to me (I do not find the arguments for a god convincing), but I'll consider that you've found the rebuttals unconvincing regardless of whether I found your arguments convincing.

2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

To an extent, yes. However, if you (collectively) keep insisting we look at bad argument after bad argument, at some point we're perfectly justified to at some point regard that process as a waste of time and either move on or start treating the whole thing as absurd. If after that someone were to hypothetically present a good argument, which we don't pay attention to because you lost credibility with your earlier bad arguments, then that's the fault of the people who couldn't muster a good argument until too late. I'm not going to spend half my life arguing with the guy who keeps insisting that crystal healing works no matter how many times he fails to make the case. Nor the dowser, nor the prayer-warrior, nor the UFO conspiracy theorist, nor anyone else in that vein. There's a threshold past which bad ideas no longer have a right to be taken seriously.

3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

See, this is the sort of thing that I cannot take seriously. You're arguing from definition... and yet the theistic definition of God keeps getting shifted to whatever's most convenient to the argument, rather than held to with any consistency. Here you are saying the definition of God includes importance. But when it's time for the cosmological argument? Then the definition of God becomes the creator of the universe, and the argument is presented as having proved God without any effort to show that God is important. When it's time for the presuppositionalist argument, God becomes the thing that allows logic and reasoning to happen... and no effort to show that God is also creator is provided, even though that was in theory part of the definition before. On and on and on. The more things you say are part of a definition, the more things you have to prove in order to show that the definition is met and the greater the burden of proof becomes. But the fewer things you say are part of the definition, the more of these arguments would have to be discarded as complete non-sequitur. So apologists seem to just adopt and drop pieces of the God definition as convenient, and shows a lack of intellectual integrity and principles. I have no respect for the definitions of people who themselves do not respect them.

But that's just an in theory objection to what you have said. Far more significant is what you said about seeing it as irrational and evil to belittle an idea and being forgiving of that. Whether it is irrational to believe in God depends on the weight of evidence and argument in favor of the idea's proposition, not the importance of the proposition if true, and to think otherwise is to not know what irrationality is. That's a pointed insult. Whether it is EVIL to belittle the idea is far more dangerous. This idea of it being evil is DANGEROUS. It leads to inquisitions, blasphemy laws, and all sorts of ugliness. There is a line of cause-and-effect between regarding disrespect for the idea of evil, and thought-crimes and all sorts of atrocities in the name of religion. That is definitely something to oppose. Forgiveness does not enter into it. I am quite capable of pitying, rather than hating, a theist caught in this mindset. But it is as dangerous and deadly as a forest fire, and I WILL unleash a fire hose of criticism upon it when the time comes.

And in the face of widespread censure for expressing doubt, criticism, and disbelief, a countervailing disrespect is both an act of defiance against and liberation from oppression. ESPECIALLY when the people who are pushing the idea insist that it (and they) are the most important things in your life and WILL NOT SHUT UP ABOUT IT. It's like dealing with telemarketers. Rudely insistent telemarketers who WILL NOT STOP CALLING and who get invited to Thanksgiving.

4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

I.... can't really decipher this. Something about goodness being irrelevant to morality and presupposing it's based on God somehow? I don't follow and I suspect an error in phrasing.

5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

Believers and non-believers alike can value human life and dignity. Believers and non-believers alike can dismiss human life and dignity. This is a matter of historical fact. Arguing about whether the person is valuable innately, or whether the only value they have is linked to God, is not any sort of evidence. All it accomplishes is a back-and-forth over attribution... and to say that a person is innately valueless without your God. I prefer to value people regardless.

6. I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

.... okay, I'm getting the sense that English is not your first language and that's okay, you're making a good effort and most of the time you're mostly understandable. As a result, I shouldn't poke fun at little slips like "testification".

....

.... nope, I shouldn't do that at all.

.....

....

.... gimme a bit, I'm mustering all my restraint, this is difficult.

.....

.....

.... phew, okay, I'm good. For future reference, the word you wanted was testimony or testimonial. Though assertion or statement or claim would probably be a better fit.

I'm new here, so I don't think your statement is aimed at me, and I don't know your history with the people here that is the basis for your skepticism. I'd speculate that a lot of it had to do with my response to your 2nd point -- that after a while, an individual or proposition that consistently and frequently falls flat on its face stops deserving serious consideration.

[pocaracas]

Don't you just love it when your brain wakes you up 2 hours before you should wake up?
It gives us time to answer these things, even from the crappy touch keyboard on the phone, with its insufferable autocorrect!

1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

Yes, I've heard your arguments.
No, I haven't found them convincing in the least.

Your arguments always fail to account for actual history and the well known human psychology.

2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

How many times have I/we shown you that the burden has not been met?
You systematically ignore that.
We present you with the names of the fallacies you employ in the hopes that you will, at least, visit the Wikipedia page on those and see if they fit for yourself.
You have not once shown that you have done so.
Instead you keep arguing and slipping down into the same fallacies.
One gets tired of this ignorance parade... (I'm only replying now because I have some two extra hours to waste, courtesy of my non-sleeping brain... Otherwise, I wouldn't even bother)

3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

That definition of God is flawed.
There is a woman I love which is the most important being. By your definition, she is god... Well goddess. And you're right, a bit. She does deserve all the praise, all the admiration, all the reference, all the dedication that you devote to whatever thing it is you mean by "god".
Why do you bring scriptures into this?
Scriptures are man-made books. And most scriptures have a well known time of writing attached. Considering all the history of mankind, and how belief in any sort of divine predates any scripture, how can you tell that the scriptures you hold dear were really conveyed by a god, and not by the imagination of men? As well intentioned as they may have been when they wrote the thing... As convinced of their divine inspiration as they may have been... How can we discern if they really were only being conduits of the divine will, or if it was all in their heads?
Human psychology again!

Is it irrational to understand human psychology and see it applied for self deception, in spite of many voices pointing out how this deception is operating?

4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

And what is goodness?
Who is hating goodness?

You say "if" goodness is God's light, I say goodness is a property of that which is good. And that which is good is that which leads to maximal happiness and minimal suffering. Happiness and suffering pertain mostly to people. And we, as social animals, have evolved throughout the ages to feel psychologically rewarded when we accomplish this good.
Lack of understanding of psychology easily leads one to attribute such reward mechanism to some hidden entity, which ends up being meshed with the concept of God... But in reality it is not so, no matter how much you perceived it as such.

5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

Once more, your failure to understand psychology leads you to conflate value with a external entity.
I value that woman I told you about above all else. It wasn't always so, but it is now. Her value, to me, has changed.
There is no inherent value imposed by an external cause. There is only the value we attribute.
Once more, as a social species, we have evolved internal intuitive mechanisms to attribute such value to our group, our kin, our family, our tribe... With the advent of countries, we managed to extend this value to our countrymen... And, with the advent of global travel and connectedness, we managed to extend it to the whole world.
But it's still only us doing it to ourselves.
People and their minds. There is no hint of any external entity imposing these things.
But I can understand how ignorance can lead one to think that there is such an external imposition. However, in this day and age, such ignorance is inexcusable. As such, laughter and mockery ensue.
That you persist in your ignorance says something about how your mind is so deeply indoctrinated that it can't release itself and honestly consider that these things have been shown to be products of our evolution as social species.

6. I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

And that is further proof that your mind is shackled to a particular ideology and cannot, will not, allow itself to consider the truths which we share with you.

Your evidence had been assessed. It has been found to be seriously lacking, but you have repeatedly failed to educate yourself, in spite of repeated attempts to show you exactly where you fail. Again, begin with the names of the fallacies that are presented to you. Try hard to understand how those fit to what you write here. If you can't, ask for help.
Amidst the noise of laughter and insults, someone will do their best to educate you.
But education can only lead so far... You must connect the dots by yourself.

[Rahn127]

A little math
A + B = C
A = C - B and you can also write this as
C - B = A

A theist might say
Truth + god = Life

An atheist knows that
Life - god = Truth

[Minimalist]

What amazes me is that MK is in school to get some sort of programming/computer science degree, yet wouldn't know what an actual proof was if one bit him on the ass.

Assertions aren't proofs.

He's not the only one.  The xhristards do it too.  Of course, they swear by their own book.

[Bob Kelso]

Blah-fucking-blah, Mystic.

No one is convinced by your arguments. Your favorite illiterate warlord is full of shit and so is that book you cling to.

[Cod]

I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

A lot of people in here are ex theists. The difference between those people and you is that they have actually assessed the 'evidence' and come to the conclusion that the 'evidence' is extremely weak, a stage that you are not at in your life.

As for being silly. Some people can indeed choose to be silly, to others it comes naturally.

[Amarok]

I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - 

You could take it you choose not too 

in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. 

As in buying your gibberish 

You chose to be silly.

No you choose to believe that 

 And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

It never meant anything to you to begin with

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

6. I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

1.  I doubt that anyone here has found your arguments convincing.  The number of AF members who have converted to Islam based on what you have to say can be counted on the fingers of one thumb.

2.  But you haven't yet offered any proof, nor even any evidence.  All we get from you is arguments so circular that they resemble nothing so much as a carousel on PCP.

3. Contradiction.  You - in the same sentence - admit the possibility that God may not exist, then the 'most revered being in existence.'  Can't have it both ways.

4.  I don't understand your sentence construction (huge shock, I know).

5.  I'm pretty sure I can value value without linking it to God. Further, you've yet to show that God has values that I should value.

6.  Does this mean you're going to stop preaching at us?

Boru

[OakTree500]

[Word Salad]

2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

[More Word Salad]

Re this part in particular:

you are 100% correct. The burden of proof lies with theists, and if you can prove it we WILL accept, that's  how science works. The problem is, theists have NO proof other than a book which is as credible as literally every other book on the planet. 

Outside the world of your book: the contents make no sense what so ever, its full of translation errors, full of various contradictions, ALSO is full of just TERRIBLE STUFF (Genocide, rape, baby killing, incest......)  and otherwise is full of so much utter garbage that has been out right edited/added to over the years [of which there is proof for], it's mind boggling how anybody worth their salt can consider this anything other than total fiction of the worst standard.

The Scientific method is were you can say "this is how I prove this, try it yourself", and when people reproduce/verify what has been done, in controlled environments, it is accepted as fact. As you can't do this with anything in the bible, AT ALL, and nobody has ever been able to do so (Resurrection? It's 100% never happened. Earth/the universe created in 7 days? how can it be 7 days when on the first "day" he created the sun? That's not how days work. I really could go on...) there is zero evidence and is total bull shit.

Until you can actually prove otherwise, I may as well believe that Spider-man is real, because I have a few books with him in.