Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion's Free Ride is Over

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:14:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For tens of centuries making the wrong observation or statement about religion could lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse. This protective bubble around religion has been maintained more recently by the suggestion of social propriety. It has been considered bad form to discuss anyone's religion, in other than a pretend aura of respect.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.

Theism has now been granted the right to attempt to justify itself under scrutiny. And the scrutiny is gaining acceptance. Many people are tired of religion being given a free ride. It's perfectly rational and relevant to note that God and Santa are both lacking in objective evidence. The same can be said of mermaids, unicorns, fairies, etc. This is NOT an insult toward religion. It's a perfectly rational and relevant observation. Theists who can't maintain a logical understanding of the propriety of the comparison have no place in apologetics. It's time to grow some skin.

Religion can now be discussed without the pretenses held over from the Dark Ages. When we find that they earn no respect, we're not forced to pretend to hold respect for them. And this is how it should be. Respect should be earned, not mandated. The iron curtain which has protected religion for so many centuries has been lifted and this is a good thing. Nothing can show itself to be worthy of consideration when it is receiving a biased form of protection. And now that the protection has been lifted, it's up to religion to either defend itself, or be shown to be a fraud.

Those who can't handle the objectivity of that reality, have no place in debate. No one should be forced to feign respect for ideas which can offer no credibility. Anyone hoping to fall back on the old biased shields held up to prevent rational scrutiny where religion is concerned is in for a rude awakening... one which is long overdue.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 6:15:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:14:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
For tens of centuries making the wrong observation or statement about religion could lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse. This protective bubble around religion has been maintained more recently by the suggestion of social propriety. It has been considered bad form to discuss anyone's religion, in other than a pretend aura of respect.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.


Oh they haven't even started, God is yet to have his final say. Those days were just man trying to be clever.

Theism has now been granted the right to attempt to justify itself under scrutiny. And the scrutiny is gaining acceptance. Many people are tired of religion being given a free ride. It's perfectly rational and relevant to note that God and Santa are both lacking in objective evidence. The same can be said of mermaids, unicorns, fairies, etc. This is NOT an insult toward religion. It's a perfectly rational and relevant observation. Theists who can't maintain a logical understanding of the propriety of the comparison have no place in apologetics. It's time to grow some skin.

Religion can now be discussed without the pretenses held over from the Dark Ages. When we find that they earn no respect, we're not forced to pretend to hold respect for them. And this is how it should be. Respect should be earned, not mandated. The iron curtain which has protected religion for so many centuries has been lifted and this is a good thing. Nothing can show itself to be worthy of consideration when it is receiving a biased form of protection. And now that the protection has been lifted, it's up to religion to either defend itself, or be shown to be a fraud.

Those who can't handle the objectivity of that reality, have no place in debate. No one should be forced to feign respect for ideas which can offer no credibility. Anyone hoping to fall back on the old biased shields held up to prevent rational scrutiny where religion is concerned is in for a rude awakening... one which is long overdue.

I don't see that Religion as ever been given a free ride, for much if it's history it has been under the domination of Satan and his hordes, as the majority of mankind is now.

You think its all over? It's only just begun. You just might change your mined at Armageddon, also know very rightly as "The Great Day of God the Almighty".

It will be too late you change your minds then you will have missed out on a perfect future.

Even though it will be God's son leading the Angles, it will still completely vindicate all that God has ever said and done.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:33:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 6:15:15 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:14:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
For tens of centuries making the wrong observation or statement about religion could lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse. This protective bubble around religion has been maintained more recently by the suggestion of social propriety. It has been considered bad form to discuss anyone's religion, in other than a pretend aura of respect.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.


Oh they haven't even started, God is yet to have his final say. Those days were just man trying to be clever.

Theism has now been granted the right to attempt to justify itself under scrutiny. And the scrutiny is gaining acceptance. Many people are tired of religion being given a free ride. It's perfectly rational and relevant to note that God and Santa are both lacking in objective evidence. The same can be said of mermaids, unicorns, fairies, etc. This is NOT an insult toward religion. It's a perfectly rational and relevant observation. Theists who can't maintain a logical understanding of the propriety of the comparison have no place in apologetics. It's time to grow some skin.

Religion can now be discussed without the pretenses held over from the Dark Ages. When we find that they earn no respect, we're not forced to pretend to hold respect for them. And this is how it should be. Respect should be earned, not mandated. The iron curtain which has protected religion for so many centuries has been lifted and this is a good thing. Nothing can show itself to be worthy of consideration when it is receiving a biased form of protection. And now that the protection has been lifted, it's up to religion to either defend itself, or be shown to be a fraud.

Those who can't handle the objectivity of that reality, have no place in debate. No one should be forced to feign respect for ideas which can offer no credibility. Anyone hoping to fall back on the old biased shields held up to prevent rational scrutiny where religion is concerned is in for a rude awakening... one which is long overdue.

I don't see that Religion as ever been given a free ride, for much if it's history it has been under the domination of Satan and his hordes, as the majority of mankind is now.

You think its all over? It's only just begun. You just might change your mined at Armageddon, also know very rightly as "The Great Day of God the Almighty".

It will be too late you change your minds then you will have missed out on a perfect future.

Even though it will be God's son leading the Angles, it will still completely vindicate all that God has ever said and done.

When God finally destroys the flesh of ALL His people during this age and especially on the last day of this first age, man will never be deceived again. We will awaken to a new Heaven and Earth without ever knowing what religion and science are about. We won't understand decay, destruction or death. We won't know about any Jesus, God of Abraham, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, JW's, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.

We will be speaking a whole new language that ALL God's people will understand;

Zephaniah 3:
8: "Therefore wait for me," says the LORD, "for the day when I arise as a witness. For my decision is to gather nations, to assemble kingdoms, to pour out upon them my indignation, all the heat of my anger; for in the fire of my jealous wrath all the earth shall be consumed.
9: "Yea, at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord.
Springheeledjack
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:56:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!

Has the James Randi Educational Foundation explored every claimed instance of a miracle from history?

If not, by what warrant can you claim that our entire predeccesors failed to even meet the pre-requitsites of demonstrating a claims of the supernatural?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:26:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
{42} And among them are those who listen to you. But can you cause the deaf to hear, although they will not use reason?
{43} And among them are those who look at you. But can you guide the blind although they will not [attempt to] see?
{44} Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.

(Quran 10:42-44)

Bring your anti-absolutes, anti-rationality, and your moral and intellectual anarchy whining out of here.
I mean seriously, if convincing a sane person requires rationality, and rationality presupposes logic, then there isn't much we can say to someone who actively deny the existence of logic.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:57:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:14:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
For tens of centuries making the wrong observation or statement about religion could lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse. This protective bubble around religion has been maintained more recently by the suggestion of social propriety. It has been considered bad form to discuss anyone's religion, in other than a pretend aura of respect.

This is not the United States you're talking about. Making the wrong decision about religion did not lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse in the U.S. since it's creation as a nation. You have to go on foreign ground in order to justify those claims. And in doing so we also run into the same scenario, except in some mentioning a belief in God is what places an individual in each of those precarious positions.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.

Not on foreign soil they are not.

Theism has now been granted the right to attempt to justify itself under scrutiny. And the scrutiny is gaining acceptance. Many people are tired of religion being given a free ride. It's perfectly rational and relevant to note that God and Santa are both lacking in objective evidence. The same can be said of mermaids, unicorns, fairies, etc. This is NOT an insult toward religion. It's a perfectly rational and relevant observation. Theists who can't maintain a logical understanding of the propriety of the comparison have no place in apologetics. It's time to grow some skin.

Religion can now be discussed without the pretenses held over from the Dark Ages. When we find that they earn no respect, we're not forced to pretend to hold respect for them. And this is how it should be. Respect should be earned, not mandated. The iron curtain which has protected religion for so many centuries has been lifted and this is a good thing. Nothing can show itself to be worthy of consideration when it is receiving a biased form of protection. And now that the protection has been lifted, it's up to religion to either defend itself, or be shown to be a fraud.

Those who can't handle the objectivity of that reality, have no place in debate. No one should be forced to feign respect for ideas which can offer no credibility. Anyone hoping to fall back on the old biased shields held up to prevent rational scrutiny where religion is concerned is in for a rude awakening... one which is long overdue.
Respecting religion is an option. If an American doesn't respect religion, my question would be to them why respect the founding fathers? And that question arises of course because a number of atheists do seem to claim to respect them. As if America has become religious at some point at a much later time. On the contrary, back then atheism was a far more unpopular theme than it is today in terms of numbers. The concept of it existed, but it's historical presence is pretty much non-existent. In other words, why pretend to be in alignment with those who would be in just as much disagreement with atheists as theists are today?

To be realistic, the number of Christians occupying this country in it's early years was enough to wipe out deism. The Christians, although many not being too fond of deism, realized that religious freedom meant the inclusion of deism if they were going to do this religious freedom thing right. Save maybe a quote from Thomas Jefferson, there wasn't really any mention of atheist rights. Through the years however, as atheism began to grow, we are now where we are at today because there was never a moment where Christians demanded a theocracy.

So whether or not you choose to respect religion is entirely up to you. But it's a result of progressive years of abiding by a principle of freedom of religion rather than some atheistic coup d'etat. There is no golden defining moment for atheists. It's been there all along, progressing in stages.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:43:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

Thank you!

Everyone should bare witness to the instant anger which arises when theists are confronted with the reality that religion is not being held to the standards of any other belief. It's as though they know that it will fail.

And while you love to proclaim that I've never had a spiritual experience, this is what we have in common. I'm sure you've had many emotional experiences, as have I. The difference is that I don't miscatetorize them as "spiritual", and you do.

Now... can you support your religious beliefs as you would support any secular beliefs. or do your religious beliefs fail attempts at support?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:48:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 9:56:18 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!

Has the James Randi Educational Foundation explored every claimed instance of a miracle from history?

If not, by what warrant can you claim that our entire predeccesors failed to even meet the pre-requitsites of demonstrating a claims of the supernatural?

By the fact that there is no evidence that any supernatural event has ever occurred.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:53:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 10:26:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
{42} And among them are those who listen to you. But can you cause the deaf to hear, although they will not use reason?
{43} And among them are those who look at you. But can you guide the blind although they will not [attempt to] see?
{44} Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.

(Quran 10:42-44)

Bring your anti-absolutes, anti-rationality, and your moral and intellectual anarchy whining out of here.
I mean seriously, if convincing a sane person requires rationality, and rationality presupposes logic, then there isn't much we can say to someone who actively deny the existence of logic.

The only ones actively denying the existence of logic are theists proclaiming that logic can't be tested. I've never seen any such secular claim, and indeed, any such claim would be pure idiocy.

Atheists do tend to use logic and rationality in arriving at their belief that gods do not exist. The one's who bypass these cognitive constructs are theists who apply completely different forms of thought to their religious beliefs than they would utilize for secular beliefs. If you open a bag and find no evidence of a cobra inside, do you insist that the bag contains a cobra? Or is the lack of evidence for a cobra, sufficient to conclude that the cobra is not there?

When it comes to your God, you insist he exists despite the complete lack of evidence for his existence. And yet, nothing should be more obviously evidence than God, were he to exist.

In pursuit of religious beliefs, theists reject reason, refuse to see, and continue wronging themselves and others.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 6:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists, give it up. You are baby whiners who are jealous of adults who have the ability to use their God-given spiritual receptors and spiritual cognition in their brains that you are disabled in. And please, no lies about there not being any spiritual receptors in the human brain as it not only produces religious mentality it produces PHYSICALLY recordable human affect--the passage of spiritual energy through a person receiving it produces shaking and quaking, well-known physical features of spiritual consciousness. You atheists have nothing now to shore up you childish religious belief system that there is no spiritual phenomena when even the human body knows better. Plus you forget my spiritual consciousness produced so much energy that over 500 people were affected by it, living proof of spiritual reality you can never ever extinguish with mere negative words.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 6:58:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:53:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 10:26:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
{42} And among them are those who listen to you. But can you cause the deaf to hear, although they will not use reason?
{43} And among them are those who look at you. But can you guide the blind although they will not [attempt to] see?
{44} Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.

(Quran 10:42-44)

Bring your anti-absolutes, anti-rationality, and your moral and intellectual anarchy whining out of here.
I mean seriously, if convincing a sane person requires rationality, and rationality presupposes logic, then there isn't much we can say to someone who actively deny the existence of logic.

The only ones actively denying the existence of logic are theists proclaiming that logic can't be tested. I've never seen any such secular claim, and indeed, any such claim would be pure idiocy.

Atheists do tend to use logic and rationality in arriving at their belief that gods do not exist. The one's who bypass these cognitive constructs are theists who apply completely different forms of thought to their religious beliefs than they would utilize for secular beliefs. If you open a bag and find no evidence of a cobra inside, do you insist that the bag contains a cobra? Or is the lack of evidence for a cobra, sufficient to conclude that the cobra is not there?

When it comes to your God, you insist he exists despite the complete lack of evidence for his existence. And yet, nothing should be more obviously evidence than God, were he to exist.

In pursuit of religious beliefs, theists reject reason, refuse to see, and continue wronging themselves and others.

I am confused. You first acknowledge that logic exists... Then you advocate philosophical materialism and deny the existence of logical conclusions. *mind blown* Internal non-contradiction.

More false analogies in an attempt ignoring the intellectual obligation to use disciplined deductive argumentation. You know, the usual cliche's.
Advocating the use of the arguments from ignorance and special pleading, and being unable to discern between logical arguments and fallacies. You brought nothing new.

You are asleep. Evidence has been given to you many, many times; you do not refute it, but you claim that it does not exist. You avoid addressing it like the plague in fear of what would happen to your ideology. Keep hiding behind your philosophical forcefield, little grasshopper.
Your persistent failure to engage with actual arguments is getting boring and repetitive. If your position is that weak, then at least engage the arguments being made, K? Otherwise, your religious belief is an anti-rational intellectual failure.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:17:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:14:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
For tens of centuries making the wrong observation or statement about religion could lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse. This protective bubble around religion has been maintained more recently by the suggestion of social propriety. It has been considered bad form to discuss anyone's religion, in other than a pretend aura of respect.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.

Theism has now been granted the right to attempt to justify itself under scrutiny. And the scrutiny is gaining acceptance. Many people are tired of religion being given a free ride. It's perfectly rational and relevant to note that God and Santa are both lacking in objective evidence. The same can be said of mermaids, unicorns, fairies, etc. This is NOT an insult toward religion. It's a perfectly rational and relevant observation. Theists who can't maintain a logical understanding of the propriety of the comparison have no place in apologetics. It's time to grow some skin.

Religion can now be discussed without the pretenses held over from the Dark Ages. When we find that they earn no respect, we're not forced to pretend to hold respect for them. And this is how it should be. Respect should be earned, not mandated. The iron curtain which has protected religion for so many centuries has been lifted and this is a good thing. Nothing can show itself to be worthy of consideration when it is receiving a biased form of protection. And now that the protection has been lifted, it's up to religion to either defend itself, or be shown to be a fraud.

Those who can't handle the objectivity of that reality, have no place in debate. No one should be forced to feign respect for ideas which can offer no credibility. Anyone hoping to fall back on the old biased shields held up to prevent rational scrutiny where religion is concerned is in for a rude awakening... one which is long overdue.

Be sure your sins will find you out.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:19:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 10:57:34 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:14:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
For tens of centuries making the wrong observation or statement about religion could lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse. This protective bubble around religion has been maintained more recently by the suggestion of social propriety. It has been considered bad form to discuss anyone's religion, in other than a pretend aura of respect.

This is not the United States you're talking about. Making the wrong decision about religion did not lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse in the U.S. since it's creation as a nation.
This is true and is partially due to the intelligence of the founding fathers in seeing that theocracies never work to the advantage of the people. So they ruled out religion as having any effect over government. Unfortunately, the religious have not been accepting of this standard and have sought to instigate religious values as law.

You have to go on foreign ground in order to justify those claims. And in doing so we also run into the same scenario, except in some mentioning a belief in God is what places an individual in each of those precarious positions.
Well, ideally you would be correct. And certainly, we don't face execution or imprisonment. But we (non-believers), are subjected to religious standards in other ways. For instance, it's still somewhat of a social faux pas to respond to instigation of religious values in an anti-theist stance in most social situations. It has actually become illegal to engage in anti-religious discussion with the religious in the work-place. Such laws are clearly a violation of the Constitution, but they exist and are enforced, none-the-less.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.

Not on foreign soil they are not.
And that's a sad thing. Hopefully, the examples being set in countries which actually hold belief in some level of freedom for the people, will soon follow suit and disband those who believe they have the right to instigate violence against people simply for voicing rationality.

Theism has now been granted the right to attempt to justify itself under scrutiny. And the scrutiny is gaining acceptance. Many people are tired of religion being given a free ride. It's perfectly rational and relevant to note that God and Santa are both lacking in objective evidence. The same can be said of mermaids, unicorns, fairies, etc. This is NOT an insult toward religion. It's a perfectly rational and relevant observation. Theists who can't maintain a logical understanding of the propriety of the comparison have no place in apologetics. It's time to grow some skin.

Religion can now be discussed without the pretenses held over from the Dark Ages. When we find that they earn no respect, we're not forced to pretend to hold respect for them. And this is how it should be. Respect should be earned, not mandated. The iron curtain which has protected religion for so many centuries has been lifted and this is a good thing. Nothing can show itself to be worthy of consideration when it is receiving a biased form of protection. And now that the protection has been lifted, it's up to religion to either defend itself, or be shown to be a fraud.

Those who can't handle the objectivity of that reality, have no place in debate. No one should be forced to feign respect for ideas which can offer no credibility. Anyone hoping to fall back on the old biased shields held up to prevent rational scrutiny where religion is concerned is in for a rude awakening... one which is long overdue.
Respecting religion is an option. If an American doesn't respect religion, my question would be to them why respect the founding fathers?
It is less the founding fathers, and more the ideas they provided. And those ideas deserve respect because they have shown that they were well thought-out, and achieve what they were intended to achieve. Unfortunately, they tend to receive less respect from the religious, who believe that ancient superstition is a superior groundwork for the establishment of government.

And that question arises of course because a number of atheists do seem to claim to respect them. As if America has become religious at some point at a much later time. On the contrary, back then atheism was a far more unpopular theme than it is today in terms of numbers. The concept of it existed, but it's historical presence is pretty much non-existent. In other words, why pretend to be in alignment with those who would be in just as much disagreement with atheists as theists are today?
But they weren't in disagreement with atheists. That's what the separation of church and state is all about. Unfortunately, the religious tend to have far less respect for the foundations of the U.S., and seek to persecute atheism.

To be realistic, the number of Christians occupying this country in it's early years was enough to wipe out deism. The Christians, although many not being too fond of deism, realized that religious freedom meant the inclusion of deism if they were going to do this religious freedom thing right.
Let's not over-look the fact that among the founding fathers there was a substantial representation for deism.

Save maybe a quote from Thomas Jefferson, there wasn't really any mention of atheist rights. Through the years however, as atheism began to grow, we are now where we are at today because there was never a moment where Christians demanded a theocracy.
To openly demand a theocracy would be to boldly proclaim a disbelief in American standards. And one of the interesting observations to be made is that even people who promote religion over the Constitution, and other ideas which are clearly anti-American, don't think of themselves as anti-American. So they claim - and believe - that they hold respect for the values which form the foundation of America, yet continually press to over-throw some of those very values, in promoting their religions.

So whether or not you choose to respect religion is entirely up to you. But it's a result of progressive years of abiding by a principle of freedom of religion rather than some atheistic coup d'etat. There is no golden defining moment for atheists. It's been there all along, progressing in stages.
But it is that very progression that so many theists find objectionable. Theists have always felt it was appropriate for them to issue "God Bless", and "God willing", as standards of conversation. But should one make any comment contrary to the belief in God, quiet gasps are heard. Many theists have now taken to the use of the term "militant atheist" to describe any atheist who doesn't hold his beliefs in silent seclusion. Meanwhile, those same theists believe it is appropriate for them to travel door-to-door in attempts to spread their beliefs.

This is simply a demonstration that many refuse to accept that their religion is no longer receiving an inappropriate shelter in which to multiply and spread.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Springheeledjack
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:20:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:48:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:56:18 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!

Has the James Randi Educational Foundation explored every claimed instance of a miracle from history?

If not, by what warrant can you claim that our entire predeccesors failed to even meet the pre-requitsites of demonstrating a claims of the supernatural?

By the fact that there is no evidence that any supernatural event has ever occurred.

Oh, have you looked at the evidence for every single miracle, then?
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:21:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 6:58:27 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:53:31 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 10:26:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
{42} And among them are those who listen to you. But can you cause the deaf to hear, although they will not use reason?
{43} And among them are those who look at you. But can you guide the blind although they will not [attempt to] see?
{44} Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.

(Quran 10:42-44)

Bring your anti-absolutes, anti-rationality, and your moral and intellectual anarchy whining out of here.
I mean seriously, if convincing a sane person requires rationality, and rationality presupposes logic, then there isn't much we can say to someone who actively deny the existence of logic.

The only ones actively denying the existence of logic are theists proclaiming that logic can't be tested. I've never seen any such secular claim, and indeed, any such claim would be pure idiocy.

Atheists do tend to use logic and rationality in arriving at their belief that gods do not exist. The one's who bypass these cognitive constructs are theists who apply completely different forms of thought to their religious beliefs than they would utilize for secular beliefs. If you open a bag and find no evidence of a cobra inside, do you insist that the bag contains a cobra? Or is the lack of evidence for a cobra, sufficient to conclude that the cobra is not there?

When it comes to your God, you insist he exists despite the complete lack of evidence for his existence. And yet, nothing should be more obviously evidence than God, were he to exist.

In pursuit of religious beliefs, theists reject reason, refuse to see, and continue wronging themselves and others.

I am confused. You first acknowledge that logic exists... Then you advocate philosophical materialism and deny the existence of logical conclusions. *mind blown* Internal non-contradiction.

More false analogies in an attempt ignoring the intellectual obligation to use disciplined deductive argumentation. You know, the usual cliche's.
Advocating the use of the arguments from ignorance and special pleading, and being unable to discern between logical arguments and fallacies. You brought nothing new.

You are asleep. Evidence has been given to you many, many times; you do not refute it, but you claim that it does not exist. You avoid addressing it like the plague in fear of what would happen to your ideology. Keep hiding behind your philosophical forcefield, little grasshopper.
Your persistent failure to engage with actual arguments is getting boring and repetitive. If your position is that weak, then at least engage the arguments being made, K? Otherwise, your religious belief is an anti-rational intellectual failure.

Trot on over to this thread http://www.debate.org... and supply your evidence.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:20:15 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:48:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:56:18 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!

Has the James Randi Educational Foundation explored every claimed instance of a miracle from history?

If not, by what warrant can you claim that our entire predeccesors failed to even meet the pre-requitsites of demonstrating a claims of the supernatural?

By the fact that there is no evidence that any supernatural event has ever occurred.

Oh, have you looked at the evidence for every single miracle, then?

I would find it more than a bit difficult to look at the evidence when there is no such evidence. However, if you think you have evidence of a miracle, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would welcome you to present it. And you could also present it to the James Randi foundation, and pursue the million dollar reward.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:28:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:17:36 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:14:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
For tens of centuries making the wrong observation or statement about religion could lead to death, imprisonment, exile, or worse. This protective bubble around religion has been maintained more recently by the suggestion of social propriety. It has been considered bad form to discuss anyone's religion, in other than a pretend aura of respect.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.

Theism has now been granted the right to attempt to justify itself under scrutiny. And the scrutiny is gaining acceptance. Many people are tired of religion being given a free ride. It's perfectly rational and relevant to note that God and Santa are both lacking in objective evidence. The same can be said of mermaids, unicorns, fairies, etc. This is NOT an insult toward religion. It's a perfectly rational and relevant observation. Theists who can't maintain a logical understanding of the propriety of the comparison have no place in apologetics. It's time to grow some skin.

Religion can now be discussed without the pretenses held over from the Dark Ages. When we find that they earn no respect, we're not forced to pretend to hold respect for them. And this is how it should be. Respect should be earned, not mandated. The iron curtain which has protected religion for so many centuries has been lifted and this is a good thing. Nothing can show itself to be worthy of consideration when it is receiving a biased form of protection. And now that the protection has been lifted, it's up to religion to either defend itself, or be shown to be a fraud.

Those who can't handle the objectivity of that reality, have no place in debate. No one should be forced to feign respect for ideas which can offer no credibility. Anyone hoping to fall back on the old biased shields held up to prevent rational scrutiny where religion is concerned is in for a rude awakening... one which is long overdue.

Be sure your sins will find you out.

Have you been snooping through my underwear drawer? You noticed the cotton and polyester blend? Why is that a problem?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:43:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 6:58:27 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:53:31 PM, Beastt wrote:

I am confused.
I would not disagree.

You first acknowledge that logic exists... Then you advocate philosophical materialism.
No, I advocate scientific "materialism". If there is anything more than the physical, why do we find no evidence for it? And if your answer is that we find no evidence because it's not physical, then you must also suggest that it does not affect the physical. And if it doesn't affect the physical, then it is inconsequential to the physical, and you cannot know of it.

and deny the existence of logical conclusions. *mind blown* Internal non-contradiction.
To observe a complete lack of evidence for a given construct, and yet accept that the construct is real, is illogical, not logical. The illogical position is yours.

More false analogies in an attempt ignoring the intellectual obligation to use disciplined deductive argumentation. You know, the usual cliche's.
Advocating the use of the arguments from ignorance
That is false. A lack of evidence is NOT ignorance. It is knowledge. When looking for your car keys, if you check your pocket and find no evidence of them, you have now gained the knowledge that they are not in your pocket. Saying they're not in your pocket is NOT an "argument from ignorance". The same applies to the lack of evidence for God.

and special pleading, and being unable to discern between logical arguments and fallacies. You brought nothing new.
Special pleading is exercised when one attempts to remove their conceptual god from a temporal reality, while retaining all else within a temporal reality, to escape the obvious - that if the universe required a creator, the creator would also require a creator. This is purely logical. Stating that the lack of evidence for a polar bear in the trunk of your car is support for the claim that there is no polar bear in the trunk, yet claiming that the lack of evidence for God does not support the claim that God does not exist, is special-pleading.

You are asleep.
I'm fully awake.

Evidence has been given to you many, many times;
No it hasn't. I've openly asked for objective evidence many, many times. Never has anyone ever presented even a shred of objective evidence. In fact, bulproof has recently revived one of my threads in which I made a specific request for objective evidence for God. Feel free to present actual evidence, either here or there. But please, discontinue with the fallacious claim that it has been presented, when you obviously have taken no steps to present any.

you do not refute it, but you claim that it does not exist.
I can't refute what has not been provided

You avoid addressing it like the plague in fear of what would happen to your ideology.
Look, either present objective evidence for God, or don't. But desist with your insistence that I avoid refuting, what HAS NOT been presented. That's something called "lying", and paints you as one of no morals, ethics or credibility. So either present objective evidence for God, or be silent.

If you can't present it, it's a good indication that you have none. If you think you have objective evidence for God... THEN PRESENT IT! But desist with your fallacious claim that it has been presented, as well as your disingenuous assertion that I've ever fled from addressing it. IT SIMPLY, HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Springheeledjack
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:43:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:23:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:20:15 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:48:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:56:18 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!

Has the James Randi Educational Foundation explored every claimed instance of a miracle from history?

If not, by what warrant can you claim that our entire predeccesors failed to even meet the pre-requitsites of demonstrating a claims of the supernatural?

By the fact that there is no evidence that any supernatural event has ever occurred.

Oh, have you looked at the evidence for every single miracle, then?

I would find it more than a bit difficult to look at the evidence when there is no such evidence. However, if you think you have evidence of a miracle, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would welcome you to present it. And you could also present it to the James Randi foundation, and pursue the million dollar reward.

This is exactly your problem. You assume there is no evidence which can be left by the supernatural. Then when you look at evidence, you dismiss it all, because it can never be evidence. Because you've presumed there is no evidence for the supernatural.

The atheist wheel of logic, ladies and gentlemen.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:50:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:43:27 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:23:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:20:15 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:48:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:56:18 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!

Has the James Randi Educational Foundation explored every claimed instance of a miracle from history?

If not, by what warrant can you claim that our entire predeccesors failed to even meet the pre-requitsites of demonstrating a claims of the supernatural?

By the fact that there is no evidence that any supernatural event has ever occurred.

Oh, have you looked at the evidence for every single miracle, then?

I would find it more than a bit difficult to look at the evidence when there is no such evidence. However, if you think you have evidence of a miracle, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would welcome you to present it. And you could also present it to the James Randi foundation, and pursue the million dollar reward.

This is exactly your problem. You assume there is no evidence which can be left by the supernatural. Then when you look at evidence, you dismiss it all, because it can never be evidence. Because you've presumed there is no evidence for the supernatural.

The atheist wheel of logic, ladies and gentlemen.

Provide evidence that the supernatural exists and I'll be more than happy to look at it and discuss it with you, but do ensure that it is evidence you present.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:29:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:43:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

Thank you!

Everyone should bare witness to the instant anger which arises when theists are confronted with the reality that religion is not being held to the standards of any other belief. It's as though they know that it will fail.

Objective Evidence means with emotion removed. Evidence is only given value based on the system of rules it is being presented in. What counts as evidence in court, may not be "objective evidence" in science. Take for instance eye witness testimony.

So stuff mincing words about evidence. I've noticed a habit of you is to take a word and define as you want, disallowing any other accepted definition for the word. What you really are asking for by saying "objective evidence' is scientific evidence.

You say that is the litmus test for all beliefs, in this respect you are flat out wrong. Statements or reliable depending on the scenario. Court, Astronomy, Social Sciences, Math, Physics, Statistics, History etc.. ALL WEIGH EVIDENCE DIFFERENTLY!

You make it out like objective evidence aka scientific evidence is this agreed upon certainty. Which is a fallacy of consensus. What you must not be aware of is formalized logic is augmented by assumptions to establish systems like Chemistry and Physics.

The Scientific Method attempt to remove doubt from it's findings, attempts to mitigate Cartesian Doubt. Methodological skepticism shows that even when emotion is removed from an investigation the results may STILL NOT be the truth. Most great thinkers understood this and treated their findings not as perfectly true (which is what you seem to think scientific or objective evidence is) but they say them as better resolutions of the truth.

Some where along the line the education of people has forgotten to include logic and doubt, about what can really be discerned with 100% certainty and what can not. And how to weigh things with different amounts of supporting evidence. Faith has more to do with your everyday life than you let on. There is a line at which "objective evidence" can't cross. This holds true for religious ideas such as God as much as holds true for you crossing a street, flying in a helicopter, in retelling history, in crafting new materials.

I think everyone should scrutinize their beliefs and held positions, and continually review this set on regular intervals. It's important to know when your beliefs are contrary to the perceptions of reality or are inconsistent. Everyone should know when they make a statement, when weighing how true it is, they should know how far logic takes them, how far science takes them, how far math takes them, how far their statements can be supported by different things.


And while you love to proclaim that I've never had a spiritual experience, this is what we have in common. I'm sure you've had many emotional experiences, as have I. The difference is that I don't miscatetorize them as "spiritual", and you do.

Now... can you support your religious beliefs as you would support any secular beliefs. or do your religious beliefs fail attempts at support?

You're right about one thing. The trust and support I put into my religious views took more scrutiny and investigation than some people might put in their trust and views of their best friends, than the acceptance of helicopters and airplanes flying, than the understanding of how a phone works, than their political views, than many things.

And you only ask for objective repeatable scientific evidence of God because you have a conviction a God does not exist. You certainly do not seem to ask for the same about gravitons, multiple dimensions, or the age of the universe. But when it comes to God, well you will be the judge of what evidence is acceptable. Ignore the social consensus and prevalence of the idea of God, ignore the modal logic for God, ignore the eye-witness testimonies, ignore the fabric of reality that is required for God to have the qualities attributed to God.

Like most of the views people (to include you) espouse, a rational belief or lack-of-belief requires the suspension of doubt. Where an irrational belief or lack-of-belief is the suspension of reality (collective reality).

As long as their is a free, RESPECTFUL, discourse open to all rational minds, then an investigation in matters of truth can progress.

Are you stating people with theistic viewpoints are not welcomed on the road to find out about this universe and the reality we live in?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:29:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:43:27 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:23:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:20:15 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:48:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:56:18 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:59:18 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is looking for idiots like you to demonstrate your claims of any literal Supernatural & Or Paranormal influences?

Your entire predecessors failed even the pre-requisites but of course you & your spirit(s) will (ahem) prevail, (LMAO@U)

Link: http://www.randi.org...

Let us all know how you went on with their confirmation?

Meanwhile I remain vindicated & those like you remain a proven fraud with an exceptionally big-mouth spewing hot-air!

Has the James Randi Educational Foundation explored every claimed instance of a miracle from history?

If not, by what warrant can you claim that our entire predeccesors failed to even meet the pre-requitsites of demonstrating a claims of the supernatural?

By the fact that there is no evidence that any supernatural event has ever occurred.

Oh, have you looked at the evidence for every single miracle, then?

I would find it more than a bit difficult to look at the evidence when there is no such evidence. However, if you think you have evidence of a miracle, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would welcome you to present it. And you could also present it to the James Randi foundation, and pursue the million dollar reward.

This is exactly your problem. You assume there is no evidence which can be left by the supernatural. Then when you look at evidence, you dismiss it all, because it can never be evidence. Because you've presumed there is no evidence for the supernatural.

The atheist wheel of logic, ladies and gentlemen.

You're being intentionally disingenuous. Please show MY words, where I suggested that evidence of the supernatural can't be evidence. YOU wrote those words, not I.

So I'll repeat myself, for your benefit; if you believe you have evidence of the supernatural, PRESENT IT!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:35:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 9:29:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:43:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

Thank you!

Everyone should bare witness to the instant anger which arises when theists are confronted with the reality that religion is not being held to the standards of any other belief. It's as though they know that it will fail.

Objective Evidence means with emotion removed. Evidence is only given value based on the system of rules it is being presented in. What counts as evidence in court, may not be "objective evidence" in science. Take for instance eye witness testimony.

So stuff mincing words about evidence. I've noticed a habit of you is to take a word and define as you want, disallowing any other accepted definition for the word. What you really are asking for by saying "objective evidence' is scientific evidence.

You say that is the litmus test for all beliefs, in this respect you are flat out wrong. Statements or reliable depending on the scenario. Court, Astronomy, Social Sciences, Math, Physics, Statistics, History etc.. ALL WEIGH EVIDENCE DIFFERENTLY!

You make it out like objective evidence aka scientific evidence is this agreed upon certainty. Which is a fallacy of consensus. What you must not be aware of is formalized logic is augmented by assumptions to establish systems like Chemistry and Physics.

The Scientific Method attempt to remove doubt from it's findings, attempts to mitigate Cartesian Doubt. Methodological skepticism shows that even when emotion is removed from an investigation the results may STILL NOT be the truth. Most great thinkers understood this and treated their findings not as perfectly true (which is what you seem to think scientific or objective evidence is) but they say them as better resolutions of the truth.

Some where along the line the education of people has forgotten to include logic and doubt, about what can really be discerned with 100% certainty and what can not. And how to weigh things with different amounts of supporting evidence. Faith has more to do with your everyday life than you let on. There is a line at which "objective evidence" can't cross. This holds true for religious ideas such as God as much as holds true for you crossing a street, flying in a helicopter, in retelling history, in crafting new materials.

I think everyone should scrutinize their beliefs and held positions, and continually review this set on regular intervals. It's important to know when your beliefs are contrary to the perceptions of reality or are inconsistent. Everyone should know when they make a statement, when weighing how true it is, they should know how far logic takes them, how far science takes them, how far math takes them, how far their statements can be supported by different things.


And while you love to proclaim that I've never had a spiritual experience, this is what we have in common. I'm sure you've had many emotional experiences, as have I. The difference is that I don't miscatetorize them as "spiritual", and you do.

Now... can you support your religious beliefs as you would support any secular beliefs. or do your religious beliefs fail attempts at support?

You're right about one thing. The trust and support I put into my religious views took more scrutiny and investigation than some people might put in their trust and views of their best friends, than the acceptance of helicopters and airplanes flying, than the understanding of how a phone works, than their political views, than many things.

And you only ask for objective repeatable scientific evidence of God because you have a conviction a God does not exist. You certainly do not seem to ask for the same about gravitons, multiple dimensions, or the age of the universe. But when it comes to God, well you will be the judge of what evidence is acceptable. Ignore the social consensus and prevalence of the idea of God, ignore the modal logic for God, ignore the eye-witness testimonies, ignore the fabric of reality that is required for God to have the qualities attributed to God.

Like most of the views people (to include you) espouse, a rational belief or lack-of-belief requires the suspension of doubt. Where an irrational belief or lack-of-belief is the suspension of reality (collective reality).

As long as their is a free, RESPECTFUL, discourse open to all rational minds, then an investigation in matters of truth can progress.

Are you stating people with theistic viewpoints are not welcomed on the road to find out about this universe and the reality we live in?

As is your habit, you're incorrect and presenting criticism and insults on the basis of your own errors. "Objective evidence" is evidence which does not rely upon a given perspective to be understood.

Asking someone to tell you whether it's too hot, too cold or "just right" in a room, yields a subjective response to the temperature.

A working digital thermometer provides an objective indication of the temperature in a room.

Despite the length of your diatribe, it comes down to this; either you have objective evidence for God (that which doesn't rely upon your given perspective), or you don't. And it would appear that because you don't, you think you can talk your way around it by being both verbose, and incorrect.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:57:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 9:35:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:29:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:43:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:50:30 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Oh grow up, you immature child. You are an atheist and as such you have no experience with spiritual consciousness like your fellow atheists. None at all. And yet you idiots BELIEVE as true believers believe that you can somehow fool others into thinking you know anything at all about what you are talking about when you criticize religion. You don't know what you are talking about and please grow some cajones some day and face that fact of your life: zero experience with spiritual consciousness. No experience = no validity to any of yours or any other atheist drivel derived from fellow poseurs trying to tell each other they can criticize a phenomena none of them knows anything about. Only hearsay from fellow lack of experiencers.

Grow up. Look at the human record and see that all your civilization began and will end with religious awareness firmly established in human mentality as it has always been.

Thank you!

Everyone should bare witness to the instant anger which arises when theists are confronted with the reality that religion is not being held to the standards of any other belief. It's as though they know that it will fail.

Objective Evidence means with emotion removed. Evidence is only given value based on the system of rules it is being presented in. What counts as evidence in court, may not be "objective evidence" in science. Take for instance eye witness testimony.

So stuff mincing words about evidence. I've noticed a habit of you is to take a word and define as you want, disallowing any other accepted definition for the word. What you really are asking for by saying "objective evidence' is scientific evidence.

You say that is the litmus test for all beliefs, in this respect you are flat out wrong. Statements or reliable depending on the scenario. Court, Astronomy, Social Sciences, Math, Physics, Statistics, History etc.. ALL WEIGH EVIDENCE DIFFERENTLY!

You make it out like objective evidence aka scientific evidence is this agreed upon certainty. Which is a fallacy of consensus. What you must not be aware of is formalized logic is augmented by assumptions to establish systems like Chemistry and Physics.

The Scientific Method attempt to remove doubt from it's findings, attempts to mitigate Cartesian Doubt. Methodological skepticism shows that even when emotion is removed from an investigation the results may STILL NOT be the truth. Most great thinkers understood this and treated their findings not as perfectly true (which is what you seem to think scientific or objective evidence is) but they say them as better resolutions of the truth.

Some where along the line the education of people has forgotten to include logic and doubt, about what can really be discerned with 100% certainty and what can not. And how to weigh things with different amounts of supporting evidence. Faith has more to do with your everyday life than you let on. There is a line at which "objective evidence" can't cross. This holds true for religious ideas such as God as much as holds true for you crossing a street, flying in a helicopter, in retelling history, in crafting new materials.

I think everyone should scrutinize their beliefs and held positions, and continually review this set on regular intervals. It's important to know when your beliefs are contrary to the perceptions of reality or are inconsistent. Everyone should know when they make a statement, when weighing how true it is, they should know how far logic takes them, how far science takes them, how far math takes them, how far their statements can be supported by different things.


And while you love to proclaim that I've never had a spiritual experience, this is what we have in common. I'm sure you've had many emotional experiences, as have I. The difference is that I don't miscatetorize them as "spiritual", and you do.

Now... can you support your religious beliefs as you would support any secular beliefs. or do your religious beliefs fail attempts at support?

You're right about one thing. The trust and support I put into my religious views took more scrutiny and investigation than some people might put in their trust and views of their best friends, than the acceptance of helicopters and airplanes flying, than the understanding of how a phone works, than their political views, than many things.

And you only ask for objective repeatable scientific evidence of God because you have a conviction a God does not exist. You certainly do not seem to ask for the same about gravitons, multiple dimensions, or the age of the universe. But when it comes to God, well you will be the judge of what evidence is acceptable. Ignore the social consensus and prevalence of the idea of God, ignore the modal logic for God, ignore the eye-witness testimonies, ignore the fabric of reality that is required for God to have the qualities attributed to God.

Like most of the views people (to include you) espouse, a rational belief or lack-of-belief requires the suspension of doubt. Where an irrational belief or lack-of-belief is the suspension of reality (collective reality).

As long as their is a free, RESPECTFUL, discourse open to all rational minds, then an investigation in matters of truth can progress.

Are you stating people with theistic viewpoints are not welcomed on the road to find out about this universe and the reality we live in?

As is your habit, you're incorrect and presenting criticism and insults on the basis of your own errors. "Objective evidence" is evidence which does not rely upon a given perspective to be understood.

Asking someone to tell you whether it's too hot, too cold or "just right" in a room, yields a subjective response to the temperature.

A working digital thermometer provides an objective indication of the temperature in a room.

Or I'm not in a room, I am in a dream asking you the temperature. Which is one of the problems with finding truth set forward by Cartrsian. little more down to earth is your thermometer may be in error.

How would we know if your thermometer wasn't broken? An accepted field test is to bring water to a boil, and place your thermometer and 2 other in the water. Take the average of the other 2 and see if your is within tolerance.

So can we apply your simple thermometer illustration to the existence of God? After all the temp has many varying results but the answer to God's existence must only be a handful of answers. Yes, No, Can't know, Maybe we'll know.

The objective evidence of the thermometer you speak of is a consensus of thermometers. Consensus is not evidence for truth value in logic. But it has it's merits in practical science and application. <- maybe you would like to read this again.

My point was religion can entail a Rational belief. That the counter arguments you have for a materialistic naturalistic secular world has just as many leaps of faith, the suspension of doubts.

Those leaps are just too big for me to take. But you have the burden to explain making them just as well as anyone.

Despite the length of your diatribe, it comes down to this; either you have objective evidence for God (that which doesn't rely upon your given perspective), or you don't. And it would appear that because you don't, you think you can talk your way around it by being both verbose, and incorrect.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 9:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:35:33 PM, Beastt wrote:

Or I'm not in a room, I am in a dream asking you the temperature. Which is one of the problems with finding truth set forward by Cartrsian. little more down to earth is your thermometer may be in error.
Unless, of course, I specified a "working thermometer". And what do you know... I DID!
But you're so worried that I might be right about the main topic, that you're afraid to acknowledge when I'm demonstrably correct.

How would we know if your thermometer wasn't broken?
Bring some water to boiling and just as it begins to boil, insert the thermometer. Make allowances for altitude and you know if the thermometer is correct. You see, thermometers are based on subjective standards as theism is. It's objectively testable.

An accepted field test is to bring water to a boil, and place your thermometer and 2 other in the water. Take the average of the other 2 and see if your is within tolerance.
One doesn't need the other two thermometers.

So can we apply your simple thermometer illustration to the existence of God? After all the temp has many varying results but the answer to God's existence must only be a handful of answers. Yes, No, Can't know, Maybe we'll know.
The ONLY point offered by the thermometer scenario was to show the difference between "subjective" and "objective".

The objective evidence of the thermometer you speak of is a consensus of thermometers.
No, that was what YOU offered. I offered only the boiling point of water, which - given allowance for altitude (actually, air pressure), is an objective standard.

Consensus is not evidence for truth value in logic.
Nor is it what I offered. It's what YOU offered and now you're arguing against your own assertion. That's known as a "strawman".

But it has it's merits in practical science and application. <- maybe you would like to read this again.
Maybe you would care to take a moment to address what I said, rather than making contrary statements, and only addressing what you've provided?

My point was religion can entail a Rational belief.
It is NEVER rational to assume existence for that which is fully devoid of objective evidence.

That the counter arguments you have for a materialistic naturalistic secular world has just as many leaps of faith, the suspension of doubts.
Not at all. It has objective evidence, and objective evidence has - throughout history - demonstrated it's value in determining truth.

Those leaps are just too big for me to take. But you have the burden to explain making them just as well as anyone.
So you accept God without any supporting evidence, but reject the alternative conclusion, despite the fact there is no evidence contrary to it? That's find but you must also accept that this would be an action appropriately described by the word "idiocy".

Despite the length of your diatribe, it comes down to this; either you have objective evidence for God (that which doesn't rely upon your given perspective), or you don't. And it would appear that because you don't, you think you can talk your way around it by being both verbose, and incorrect.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:53:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 6:17:31 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Atheists, give it up. You are baby whiners who are jealous of adults who have the ability to use their God-given spiritual receptors and spiritual cognition in their brains that you are disabled in. And please, no lies about there not being any spiritual receptors in the human brain as it not only produces religious mentality it produces PHYSICALLY recordable human affect--the passage of spiritual energy through a person receiving it produces shaking and quaking, well-known physical features of spiritual consciousness. You atheists have nothing now to shore up you childish religious belief system that there is no spiritual phenomena when even the human body knows better. Plus you forget my spiritual consciousness produced so much energy that over 500 people were affected by it, living proof of spiritual reality you can never ever extinguish with mere negative words.

I know I am not a baby whiner, thank you very much. So basically you are saying that since we have a disbelief in god, that makes it a religious belief?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:59:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 10:45:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:57:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/8/2014 9:35:33 PM, Beastt wrote:


Or I'm not in a room, I am in a dream asking you the temperature. Which is one of the problems with finding truth set forward by Cartrsian. little more down to earth is your thermometer may be in error.
Unless, of course, I specified a "working thermometer". And what do you know... I DID!

I said a thermometer in ERROR. The device can still work but not be calibrated. I infer a broken thermometer as one that does not operate at all.

But you're so worried that I might be right about the main topic, that you're afraid to acknowledge when I'm demonstrably correct.

How would we know if your thermometer wasn't broken?
Bring some water to boiling and just as it begins to boil, insert the thermometer. Make allowances for altitude and you know if the thermometer is correct. You see, thermometers are based on subjective standards as theism is. It's objectively testable.

The objective standards you speak of are verified by repetition. It gets a bit more complicated when dealing with living beings, which is why the P value in social sciences is so many magnitudes larger than in physical sciences.


An accepted field test is to bring water to a boil, and place your thermometer and 2 other in the water. Take the average of the other 2 and see if your is within tolerance.
One doesn't need the other two thermometers.

Using one thermometer and your method is less reliable than the method I used. The risk of one error throwing thermometer off is greater. It is not the suggested or preferred way of calibrating or verifying thermometers for ammunition handling or chemical tests in field environment.

So can we apply your simple thermometer illustration to the existence of God? After all the temp has many varying results but the answer to God's existence must only be a handful of answers. Yes, No, Can't know, Maybe we'll know.
The ONLY point offered by the thermometer scenario was to show the difference between "subjective" and "objective".

The objective evidence of the thermometer you speak of is a consensus of thermometers.
No, that was what YOU offered. I offered only the boiling point of water, which - given allowance for altitude (actually, air pressure), is an objective standard.

Consensus is not evidence for truth value in logic.
Nor is it what I offered. It's what YOU offered and now you're arguing against your own assertion. That's known as a "strawman".

But it has it's merits in practical science and application. <- maybe you would like to read this again.
Maybe you would care to take a moment to address what I said, rather than making contrary statements, and only addressing what you've provided?

My point was religion can entail a Rational belief.
It is NEVER rational to assume existence for that which is fully devoid of objective evidence.

That the counter arguments you have for a materialistic naturalistic secular world has just as many leaps of faith, the suspension of doubts.
Not at all. It has objective evidence, and objective evidence has - throughout history - demonstrated it's value in determining truth.

Those leaps are just too big for me to take. But you have the burden to explain making them just as well as anyone.
So you accept God without any supporting evidence, but reject the alternative conclusion, despite the fact there is no evidence contrary to it? That's find but you must also accept that this would be an action appropriately described by the word "idiocy".

Despite the length of your diatribe, it comes down to this; either you have objective evidence for God (that which doesn't rely upon your given perspective), or you don't. And it would appear that because you don't, you think you can talk your way around it by being both verbose, and incorrect.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 11:21:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 6:17:31 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Atheists, give it up. You are baby whiners who are jealous of adults who have the ability to use their God-given spiritual receptors
"Spiritual receptors"? Where are these receptors located? How do they function? Why has medical science never mentioned them?

and spiritual cognition in their brains that you are disabled in.
Why is it that no matter how often we ask, theists can never demonstrate any level of cognition above non-theists? You claim you have this special ability but seem completely incapable of demonstrating it to be of any credibility.

And please, no lies about there not being any spiritual receptors in the human brain as it not only produces religious mentality it produces PHYSICALLY recordable human affect--the passage of spiritual energy through a person receiving it produces shaking and quaking, well-known physical features of spiritual consciousness.
Go ahead... show us evidence for these receptors. Show us "spiritual consciousness". Why can't you demonstrate that these things are real? And since you can't seem to show that they're real, how can you even know that they're real?
The only demonstrable difference shown between the brains of theists and those of atheists is that atheists tend to exhibit higher intellect.

You atheists have nothing now to shore up you childish religious belief system that there is no spiritual phenomena when even the human body knows better. Plus you forget my spiritual consciousness produced so much energy that over 500 people were affected by it, living proof of spiritual reality you can never ever extinguish with mere negative words.
Atheists don't have a religious belief system. We have a rational belief system. Offer a non-subjective demonstration of the "energy" produced by "spiritual consciousness".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire