God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?]

---

Even if it is completely naturalistic, does it justify hard atheism? Is there anything actually wrong with it?If not, why the intolerance from hard atheists?

quote:

---

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me.

---

As I said, faith is something you go looking for. It is usually not something you were born with. Why should God give you faith if you have done nothing to earn it? You have to be worthy.

quote:

---

Cute.

---

Thanks, Nos. I always try to be amusing to people who won't condescend enough to give an actual, substantive reply.

quote:

---

Now I am going to get offended. Don't pretend to know what time and effort I have put into finding out for myself.

---

I don't know your background but from what you have placed on the Internet, and the views you link to in your sig file (and personal website?) clearly indicate otherwise.In fact, you seem one step away from being an enemy of God. Here you are, I've done nothing to you and neither has my faith but you are here ridiculing my beliefs as "insane" and (on the website) "evil".You spend too much time on this board fighting theists, and that website is in a completely different league.If my God were real, do you think He would approve of that?I don't see you looking. I see open rebellion and a war against God.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

quote:

---

I would think that the king would cut the insubordination very short. YOUR GOD DOES NOT. Again, this is exactly the point.

---

Then in message 25 he says:

quote:

---

This isn't the guy to who toasted Sodom?

---

That's an internal inconsistency.Is there no God because God allows insubordination, or is there no God because God opposes insubordination? Which is it?The point is undermined.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Funk: I have debated John before but now I've seen his website. That is a serious factor here.

​

Plus, I expect reasoned replies, not trite one-liners to my comments like "Cute" or "Better than a book told me so" that add nothing to the debate but only serve to insult my intelligence.

​

That's called "Trolling" and it's quite similar to another atheist that was posting here recently, who was eventually banned for what John did in his last post: being inflammatory and not addressing the material.

---

different people feel differently about "debates" online, gene... a real debate isn't an easy thing and it usually takes away standard message board weapons such as trolling... i'd love to see a real debate once in awhile... even the 'great debate' forum doesn't really have any... but it's not easy getting two people to even agree to the question being debated, much less any other rules of conduct

By hard atheism, I take it you mean the belief that there is no God (as opposed to lack of belief in God)? I'm not aware of anyone who would use the fact that stimulating electrical impulses in your brain can provide spiritual experiences as their sole justication for believing there is no God. But I can see how it might sway the balance somewhat.Hard atheism seems difficult to fathom at first - it appears to require as much of a leap of faith as a belief in God (given that you can't disprove a negative)...but on thinking about it further I'd imagine a hard atheist to be closer to someone who thinks the existence of God is about as likely as the Invisible Pink Unicorn e.g I can't prove it, but I believe strongly that there isn't a Goblin outside my front door who's invisible to everyone else and disappears whenever I look outside.My own experience is that I have met people who believe in God purely because they've had a religious experience and as we've seen, a spiritual experience doesn't prove anything. Just as someone who has a firm conviction that they're Napolean are unlikely to be the real thing, its important to weed out all the natural causes first.PE------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

quote:

---

Hard atheism seems difficult to fathom at first - it appears to require as much of a leap of faith as a belief in God (given that you can't disprove a negative)...but on thinking about it further I'd imagine a hard atheist to be closer to someone who thinks the existence of God is about as likely as the Invisible Pink Unicorn e.g I can't prove it, but I believe strongly that there isn't a Goblin outside my front door who's invisible to everyone else and disappears whenever I look outside.

---

How do you 'look outside' in the spiritual sense? You can walk outside and check your doorstep for footprints. The notion of God is not exactly that close to home. Nowhere to look for footprints. A strong feeling that there is a God, and a lot more testimonies out there than there are for your doorstep goblin.Because of that difference, I don't think it's a very good analogy.Plus...this comes down to either there is a God or not a God. We're not limited to whether the object on your doorstep is a goblin, a pink unicorn, a purple dinosaur, or a couple of missionaries for the Jehovah's Witnesses.So, suppose...that if I cannot open my front door, and I cannot walk around outside to see...and yet I am ABSOLUTELY certain that there is NO doormat out front, so certain in fact that I ridicule people who believe in the Doormat simply because there is no evidence for it, is that logical? And is that not an analogy for the atheist at least that is at least as fair as your analogy for the theist?And also, how is this "believe strongly" different from faith? And is it enough to morally justify opposition to religion? That is, to go around criticizing people that believe?

Okay, for one my relationship to God is not a swap of addictions. I tried swapping one addiction for another quite a few times, I'll save you some time that doesn't work. Guess I should have left personal history and testimony out of this there's always another explanation hey?John I was trying to show the difference between this king and other kings. And it's incomplete because King is only one title/role. At this point I don't really know what else to say. I'm just sad. I can't think right now guess I'm going to have to post later to avoid saying something I don't want to.------------------
saved by grace

First thing here John.

quote:

---

Sorry, the easy way out is 'a book told me so'

---

Where do you get your information and knowledge?Now Brian

quote:

---

funky,

​

This sort of backs up my theory that it takes a certain kind of person to believe in God, all you have done is substituted one addiction with another, it is part of your nature to be addicted to something.

​

Also, just like the drug addict, you will do anything and say anything to get your 'god-kick'

---

I'm going to ignore the fact that I feel insulted here. It doesn't take a certain kind of person to believe in God. I think the bible is pretty clear that the blood of Jesus was shed for everyone not just for drug addicts who want to trade up.So you know my nature now do you? Boy you're brilliant must be phsycic or something. That aside yes it USED to be my nature to be addicted to something. This is the incredible thing here! This being drunk on the Spirit I mentioned is not something I go out of my way to attain, it's not a high in the usual sense of the word. It's just something that happens when you allow the Holy Spirit to dwell within you, when you listen to his gentle urges and allow him to make you God's instrument. It's that proximity to God, to be in his graces that leaves your spirit exhilerated and rejuvinated.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
You sound just like Nos482. Most of your replies were one-liners devoid of any sufficient material at all.

---

And they were replies to insubstantial material. "You've got to find God before you can walk with him." Come on Gene, can you get more trite? [quote][b]I spent actual time writing my post and you will spend time in your replies if you wish to continue the thread. [/quote]I spend an enormous amount of time researching and writing my posts, so drop the attitude. Excuse me? It seems that you are violating this very rule. It strikes me that you are avoiding the issues I am trying to raise, and you don't like the logic. If the admins have a problem with my posts, they'll let me know. Oops... hang on...

quote:

---

John, I have seen your website.

​

"Christians are evil" ? You write essays that promote pedophilia? You use your webspace to distribute pornography?

​

And you wonder why God isn't in your life?

​

You sound just like Nos482.

---

This isn't in violation of the rule you cite? And what about this?oh... wait... I see you edited out that 'sick puppy' quip.

quote:

---

Your argument is circular because you do not believe in God, therefore you see no reason to seek God.

---

Nope. That is not my argument. I ask for evidence. There isn't any, unless I believe first. Guess what? I started out believing. I was raised believing.

quote:

---

If you do not seek God, you will never believe in God.

---

I have sought God. I spent the better part of my first 25 years doing that. I see no reason to believe that such a thing exists. I follow the evidence the best I can. [quote]If I had not found a religion I liked, then eventually it would have been expedient for me to investigate Thor./quoteLike? It boils down to what you like? Gene, how do you know? This is the problematic question.

quote:

---

Your comments are remarkably similar to those of Nos. You might want to consider that in the future.

---

You post a string of assinine arguments and complain when such is pointed out to you? And splatter a healthy helping of ad hominem attacks at me to boot. The problem, dear gene, is that what you posted to me was ridiculous and hardly worth the replies I gave. Replies, which by the way, were dead on target, on topic and quite sufficient to the task.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Then you have invalidated your own analogy. This would also qualify as back-pedaling to save an argument I've shown to be poorly constructed. It doesn't speak much for your credibility, though I don't think any of this is intentional on your part.

---

It was a set up John, to show the differences between earthly kings and The King. I expected your response almost to the letter. Showing contrast.

quote:

---

The king that controls the aquaduct. Actually, a lot of power can be and has been wielded by he who controls the water supply.

---

Took me a little to literally there John. Besides the water supply of this king runs freely, if you're thirsty it's only your refusal to drink that makes it so. I was talking about serving this King out of a personal desire to do so. Not because he commanded but because you have chosen him as your king and want to serve him.

quote:

---

You must enjoy gutting your own argument.

---

Already adressed this little remark I guess by showing the purpose of my argument.

quote:

---

Then why the analogy?

---

To show the contrast between an earthly king and his kingdom and The King and his Kingdom.

quote:

---

There you go. All this trouble and you understand.

---

There you go all this trouble and you still don't understand. I would not normally search God out this way. I did. You still don't understand.

quote:

---

Funk, I felt much the same fifteen years ago when I first read Diary of a Drug Fiend. Does this mean Crowley picked me up and fixed my broken self? Not really. But by your logic it does.

---

Again there's always another explanation when you don't like the one provided hey? By your own logic that's not a legitimate point because Crowley is a man, then how could he pick you up and heal your spirit. I was talking about God. So that's not even applicable here. You used this kind of logic on me when we were discussing free will remember? Because I'm a human my foreknowledge doesn't affect my cat's free will. But if it's God's foreknowledge it's different. Not too sure what else to say right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
As I said, faith is something you go looking for. It is usually not something you were born with. Why should God give you faith if you have done nothing to earn it? You have to be worthy.

---

How long would you believe a scientific theory if you were told you could not test it? Not long I imagine. Yet, this is what you ask.

quote:

---

Thanks, Nos.

---

I am sure you are aware of my problems with nos. In that light, I can only conclude that this quip is meant for no purpose but to injure. Thanks.

quote:

---

I always try to be amusing to people who won't condescend enough to give an actual, substantive reply.

---

Give me an actual substantive problem. "To walk with God you have to find him" Well, to walk down the street you have to find it too. To drive a car you have to get inside. To watch TV you have to turn it on. You can't truly believe that quip had substance? The problem is THE FINDING, not the walking with. Think about this. To walk with God, you have to find him, to find him you HAVE FIRST TO WALK WITH HIM. That is patently absurd, and you know it.

quote:

---

I don't know your background but from what you have placed on the Internet, and the views you link to in your sig file (and personal website?) clearly indicate otherwise.

---

Indicate that I have not spent my life investigating these things? No. Indicate that I disagree with you. And you take the childish attitude that since I disagree then I must not have looked.

quote:

---

Here you are, I've done nothing to you and neither has my faith but you are here ridiculing my beliefs as "insane" and (on the website) "evil".

---

I discuss with you what comes up on the forum and I do not pull punches. I have no problem with you personally. Or, I didn't until you started posting slander. In fact, I quite respected you.

quote:

---

You spend too much time on this board fighting theists, and that website is in a completely different league.

---

I appreciate that.

quote:

---

If my God were real, do you think He would approve of that?

---

You can make up if until we both rot, but it won't make any of them true. I look for true. I do not gamble.

quote:

---

I don't see you looking. I see open rebellion and a war against God.

---

Not against god, but against human irrationality.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John, in the previous post you said that you look for truth. I was wondering, what is your definition of truth? And how do you know it when you find it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Is this your website? http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

---

It is. The relevance of that to the thread is lost on me. It seems you visited to gather material for your ad hominem.

quote:

---

Is God non-existant, or have you not gone looking?

---

Why must I repeat this over and over agian? I have been looking for my entire adult life.

quote:

---

Admit that you don't know if there is or is not a God and we can move on.

---

I have said numerous times on this forum that I am technically agnostic. I see no evidence for god.

quote:

---

John: Virtually every culture used such methods at one point or another.

​

But I don't and I'm highly offended by this slander.

---

I didn't say that you did. Like this bits about promoting pedophilia?

quote:

---

What challenge? Where is an actual reply worthy of comment?

---

From what I can tell, pretty much the whole reply I made to you was on target.

quote:

---

How about you spend an actual paragraph in rebuttal to one of my posts?

---

Why? When you post garbage I am not going to waste my time. Christians nearly universally propose the same 'faith-experiment' but it isn't really an experiment. Step one: Believe. Step two: look around and see if god is in your life. ie. look for evidence. The trick is that once you perform step one, you ARE GOING to see evidence of God or of whatever else you fill into the blank-- the easter bunny, zorloft the conquerer, my girlfriend. It is a mind-trick, a self-fulfilling system. If you believe, you will see evidence. That is why astrologers still have jobs. That is why card readers can still set up shop.

quote:

---

Plus, I expect reasoned replies, not trite one-liners to my comments like "Cute" or "Better than a book told me so" that add nothing to the debate but only serve to insult my intelligence.

---

I hit nearly everything you said in that post to me. That you don't like the implications does not make it trite or ill-considered. For some reason you could not or choose not to respond to my counterpoints and questions. Instead, you chose to directly attack my person.As I see it, your post to me was nothing but an insult my intelligence, right from the get go with 'its because you are not an insider'. That is the easy answer. It is dismissive. You move on to make claims about me that you cannot possible have information to back up.I'm sorry, gene. You don't like your faith examined, but you stepped into this of your own accord.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The problem, dear gene, is that what you posted to me was ridiculous and hardly worth the replies I gave.

---

If you say so, Nos.The fact of the matter is that my replies are not "ridiculous", and they are worthy of a real reply or no reply at all.

quote:

---

I spend an enormous amount of time researching and writing my posts, so drop the attitude.

---

Bull. If it takes you a lot of research to type things like, "Cute", "I don't understand your analogy", and "no the easy way out is to get what you believe from a book" then you lack the mental capacity to be here and you should probably go back to elementary school. (Notice the use of the word "if", differentiating this from a
an ad hominem -- because I think when you say you spend time on this board replying I think you're lieing through your teeth. That can be interpreted as an observation or an ad hominem, I'll leave that decision with you.)What pisses me off is that you have the mental capacity to reply, and you have demonstrated that in the past, you're just not doing so now. You've sunk to the level of Jet and Nos, and if you can't do any better, you should excuse yourself from this thread, because at least those two have more humor.

quote:

---

It strikes me that you are avoiding the issues I am trying to raise, and you don't like the logic.

---

Logic? Where?Was it the brilliant reply, "Cute", or was it "Better than getting it out of a book"?Look John, here is your entire post. Look at how much you have contributed! That took you time?What did your post cover?Well: (1) You told me that my logic was "absurd" without rebutting it
(2) I can't prove something, which is great, considering you can't prove anything either (3) Belief in a God is "insane" without evidence...of course you have no evidence for your faith so I suppose
you are "insane" as well.I see nothing but one-liners with no support. Things like, Oh really? Well I say it is, so there! Why don't you offer an actual
rebuttal? You know as well as I do you should spend a whole post on that, not a string of words that is *barely* a sentence.

quote:

---

This isn't in violation of the rule you cite? And what about this?

---

Stating that your articles promote pedophilia is not necessarily an attack, it is nothing but an observation. (In fact, the article itself is entitled, "The emancipation proclamation for pedophiles". You know exactly what you have posted in that article. Youturned my reference to it into an attack when you realized that pedophiles are not a particularly popular segment of the population and that you could possibly take flak for your position. I didn't do anything disrespectful, I made a statement of fact. Whatever opinions others make of you for that is a consequence of your own actions.Perhaps if you find that disrespectful, you should not post articles like to your website. You also have links that appear to contain porn, but I have not verified them. And, finally, your website does indeed say that "Christians are evil", and it also says that "Christians are...stupid", and "Christians are dishonest".
And that is another statement of fact. For confirmation, one need only follow the link. (Hey, I'm giving free hits).Are you going to claim you're not bitter?

quote:

---

I started out believing. I was raised believing.

---

Then you fell. I don't know (or particularly care) how but I can tell you're not living in a state where you can possibly find God.

quote:

---

This is the problematic question.

---

How do I know? Maybe if you will debate I'll tell you.

quote:

---

The problem, dear gene, is that what you posted to me was ridiculous

---

If my comments are ridiculous, where is the rebuttal? You're only repeating yourself, again and again. I don't think you like what you heard. You're never going to gain favor with God by calling me "dishonest", "evil", "stupid", "insane", or "ridiculous". You're never going to find God by being obsessed with lasciviousness and fascinated with underage sex.You can take that as an ad-hominem or a statement of fact.And I do think you're a "sick puppy", just like you think I'm "evil", "dishonest", "insane", and lots of other things I'm sure are going to come out.And by the way, you said you spent 20 years looking for God. I don't buy it. I think you wasted 20 years fighting God, as you say on your website: "I've been doing this for twenty years, I don't lose".For "garbage", you sure seem to duck a lot of points. Here are a few: [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

quote:

---

It seems you visited to gather material for your ad hominem.

---

I don't understand this. I'm only making statements of fact, by mentioning what you have posted on your website. How is it an ad hominem if you stand by what you have written?

quote:

---

I have been looking for my entire adult life.

---

Except for the twenty years you claim to have spent fighting Christians. Except for the time after you posted your website, which undoubtedly reveals a mind not ready for God. If you don't repent and make an honest effort you will never find God, and what's more interesting, is that you will never feel you have a reason to find God because you don't believe.Your reasoning is trapped in a vicious circle.And you don't like this because suddenly I'm trying to figure out why you have failed to find God. Now you know why I take attacks on my faith so seriously, religion is very personal. I'm trying to be nice about this but whatever you have put on your website is publicly viewable and is not beyond scrutiny, and as long as you claim that your "twenty years tearing yourself apart" is evidence against God anything you post that I think might offend God is acceptable evidence in this thread, as it may explain your failure.Your views, your opinions, and anything you tell us about your lifestyle is potential evidence in this thread as long as you continue to cite your personal "quest" for God. As I have told you many times, "religion is personal".

quote:

---

I have said numerous times on this forum that I am technically agnostic.

---

"Atheist: one who denies the existence of God""Agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"( Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary )An agnostic does not claim evidence to determine the existance or non-existance of God. You spend quite a bit of time and effort denying God. You are an atheist. If you were an agnostic you would not be contending that there is no God because you wouldn't claim to know.

quote:

---

Like this bits about promoting pedophilia?? When you post garbage I am not going to waste my time.QUOTE]

---

Then don't "waste your time" posting any reply at all. It only wastes my time with your garbage.

quote:

---

The trick is that once you perform step one, you ARE GOING to see evidence of God or of whatever else you fill into the blank

---

I don't suppose you can prove that, can you?It's just an unsupported assertion. And it does not explain those who do not believe when they begin.

quote:

---

As I see it, your post to me was nothing but an insult my intelligence, right from the get go with 'its because you are not an insider'.

---

You're not an insider. Obviously God is probably not going to want to talk to you. Trying to explain this whole concept to you is like explaining Monet to the blind. Maybe if you would repent, you would fare better. It's your life, but you have no right to claim we're hallucinating just because your attempt to find religion failed, because you gave up, were looking in the wrong place, or lacked the moral fiber necessary. And that latter comment is not an ad-hominem, it is another observation, and it is necessary to this thread; because you have used your personal experiences in an attempt to justify your beliefs. As a result, your lifestyle is up for review, and you have kindly provided me with the ammunition I need.And, incidentally, nothing I say is unfair because you have said worse about "Christians". Not even individuals, but a stereotype. You need to work on your religious tolerance.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, gene. You don't like your faith examined, but you stepped into this of your own accord.

---

And you, likewise. You may back out at any time and I won't speak ill of you, as you always offered me that option. But what you insist are "ad hominems" are now a vital part of this debate and I intend to continue using them.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]