God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Thank you for your contribution to the illustration.

---

I see you are conveniently above the standards to which you wish to hold the rest of us.

quote:

---

How many times have you acted on it?

---

Too many to count. You see, I have this terrible problem. I can't stop thinking. I try, but I just can't stop thinking.

quote:

---

This should make you suspect that perhaps it isn't actually a misrepresentation.

---

No. It just makes me realize that the two of you are more alike than I would have suspected. With nos, I made the mistake of criticising Wicca. And nos launched into lengthy attack on my character, complete with the very same misrepresentations you chose. Misrepresentations, chosen, I suspect because of the ease of misuse and because of the sensitive nature of the topics. Certain subjects carry so much emotional charge that once lit, spiral out of control leaving reason far behind. These are the fires you tries to light. And you are a bastard for it.

quote:

---

But a vast difference in quality. Mine actually said something useful. It didn't duck whole points with things like "Cute" and "Better than getting it out of a book".

---

So you believe. I felt and feel that your first post to me and most of your others are severely lacking in quality.

quote:

---

I thought you were avoiding the issue.

---

Nice that you finally realize that I wasn't.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could detail how and why "earning faith" is an oxymoron? I know lots of atheists like to believe that faith is something you either have or do not have (because it helps them escape Pascal's Wager) but perhaps you could defend that, if that is your perspective. Or otherwise elaborate?

---

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but it is simple the way I see it. Faith is belief without evidence-- evidence of things not seen, that sort of thing. How exactly do you earn that? What kind of work do you do to earn it? And if you earn it, it isn't belief without evidence. Faith earned through works should be measurable-- at least as measurable as most psychological studies pre-high-tech lab.

quote:

---

Can you prove that? Or at least elaborate on it? Have you actually tried that for any religion? Or are you speculating?

---

I can sit here and choose pretty much anything and build an unassailable faith around it. It isn't that difficult.I was raised Southern Baptist and I have since believed in several other religious structures, before settling on the idea that none of them make sense.

quote:

---

You earn your faith by diligently following God. You don't follow God therefore you will never develop any faith.

​

The process actually is a vicious circle, either way: toward or against God.

---

Ok. But I still don't know how this comes from the sentence I asked about.

quote:

---

I'm retracting that actually.

---

muchos gracias

quote:

---

But then you say you're angry at the House because they ignored the claim that children having sex doesn't do any harm. In other words, you seem to be pro-underage sex. And since sex before age of consent is rape, you are actually supporting child rape.

---

No. I have a problem with WHY the House did what they did and how they did it. It was blatant censorship of a scientific study. I don't care how contraversial the result turned out to be, the study was done properly and made it into a peer reviewed journal. I doubt this study has stood the test of the two or three years since I read the report which prompted the article. Actually changing laws based on one study would be idiotic, especially one with this much potential to do harm.And by the way, there have been several people very close to me who were victimized as children, one in particular suffered very badly -- meaning both that it happened an unbelievable number of times and that the consequences were pretty rough too. So, in short, you are really stepping out of line on this one.

quote:

---

Just out of curiousity, what did you think people would think of your article when you entitled it, "The Emancipation Proclamation for Pedophiles"?

---

The title is almost verbatim what this study was labeled by groups who were up in arms about it several years ago.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
That's the logic of a 4 year old johnny. It's a stereotype. It's wrong.

---

Is it wrong to be critical of ideas? If yes, what are you doing here and if no, drop it.Stereotype? Funk, everything is a stereotype if you break it down. Would you object to "Christians are honest, hard-working people?" Well, that is a stereotype too. Guess we'll ditch that. You cannot talk about groups without stereotyping, its just that people only complain when they don't like what is said. A stereotype is a concept used to think, and speak, in general terms. The trick is to not apply the general concept to individuals. That is when it causes trouble.

quote:

---

Anyways this thread was supposed to be about God talking, not your religious intolerance.

---

Talk to gene about that. It is hard not to respond to being called a pedophile.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Note these are not second hand stories, all personal experience.

---

Personal experience for you. Second hand for me. If you could document anything I'd be interested.I have heard similar stories from other people as well, but with different gods inserted into the appropriate blanks. These have all been second hand to me, but first hand to the one who told me, just like your stories.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
You said that prior bias always causes spurious "evidence" to be found, ie, if you believe something you always start seeing evidence for it. As I said, that's a notion very common in Creationism, that evolution bias in the science is generating spurious evidence. Are you supporting their assertion? Or, "since it isn't your reasoning," are you retracting?

---

hmmm... not either really. Such bias is bound to exist in any endeavor no matter what side you are on. I think the methods of science are designed to overcome this bias and I also think those methods do a very good job of it. The personal biases of thousands of individuals should somewhat cancel out and the appeal to detectable evidence and reproducible results weeds out most of the rest.

quote:

---

Then state your argument.

---

It is reasonable to argue based on what we've got, not on what we don't have.

quote:

---

Then you admit that atheism is faith-based, just as my religion is faith-based? Or do you seek a redefinition?

---

It seems to me that you have defined everything that is not absolutely certain to be faith based. Since nothing is absolutely certain-- the fundamental assumptions of any metaphysic cannot be tested-- then eveything is based on faith. I don't really think this is what you mean, but if you are happy with it... fine. It effectively makes faith a useless variable. It exists in all systems, so we simply write it off. Divide by faith across the board and get rid of it.

quote:

---

Bad analogy. Santa Claus is supposed to generate a physical, tangible result: presents under the tree. Therefore if there are no presents, there is no Santa.

---

Seems to me that god is supposed to generate a physical tangible result-- everything.

quote:

---

However, God is not supposed to place presents under the tree, or to miraculously build anything. That's not a part of our model of God, like it is a part of the Santa myth.

---

God is not supposed to DO anything then? Because doing anything at all should leave marks.

quote:

---

That's not happening in Christianity, the expectation of a miracle isn't there anyway.

---

Really?

quote:

---

Curious you insist on using an analogy I have already demonstrated to be faulty.

---

That you assert something does not mean I have to buy it.

quote:

---

But we do use my reasoning in the sciences. In the sciences, we normally don't *disbelieve* a new idea or concept before testing it.

---

I am aware that this is how you function as a scientist, but you are still trying to slip past the idea that you don't BELIEVE either, without testing. But God can't be tested, as you have explained. Yet you do believe. It is this quirk that troubling.

quote:

---

If science reasoned the way you do, progress would never be made because no new hypotheses would ever be tested.

---

And if we believed everything that did not have a positive disproof we'd be in bad shape as well. Yet this is what you appear to argue in the case of your religion.

quote:

---

Besides, if you have no evidence that there is no God, what room do you have to chide us for no evidence for our belief that there is indeed a God.

---

My beliefs are based on evidence, not the lack of it. Can you sincerely not see the difference?

quote:

---

(And it is possible to prove a negative, by the way. Would you like an example exercise?)

---

... depending upon how you frame the question and what you are testing, sure it is.

quote:

---

If I were a believer in Santa Claus, and you were too, we could have a theological debate of sorts, because that has nothing at all to do with the version of the myth I was taught.

---

That's funny. It honestly is part of the version I was taught.

quote:

---

The way I see it, since you realized the first version of your analogy failed, you are actually trying to alter the myth to make your analogy better.

---

The way I see it. This is precisely how god got created. But this bit about the invisible workshop I am culling from my childhood.

quote:

---

However, you have attempted to create a strawman of Christianity, in which we believe God does our construction work for us.

---

No, I haven't. But God, an active God anyway, should leave imprints.

quote:

---

This is interesting. You're trying to disprove my theology by telling me what I believe.

---

No. I am telling you what makes sense to me.

quote:

---

what "stuff" does God do and how might we identify it?

---

The basic god-stuff. Heal the sick, for example. And it ought to be detectable via careful statistical analysis. It isn't that hard to dream up a test, but since we'd be testing god... well, he wouldn't perform.

quote:

---

Further, are you now claiming that belief in God is falsifiable?

---

If it were not for that little catch about not being able to test god, then I'd say it would be falsifiable.

quote:

---

And that, by extension, Intelligent Design is a viable science?

---

That could theoretically be detected doesn't lead directly to this conclusion, but it would help. If God were actually detected it would help a lot.

quote:

---

Besides if we can test God and we can test God's influence in our universe why not test God's influence on biology?

---

Sure. Absolutely. If we can test for God and if the test is positive, then jump right into that testing for ID. I'm not worried though, the whole scenario is based on a very big if.

quote:

---

And if it is testable, it must allow us to make predictions, and be falsifiable--therefore it is a science

---

Well then let it make predictions and lets test them. If it could do this, regardless of anything else concerning God, I'd consider it science. If the tests fail, though, we have to consider it wrong.

quote:

---

regardless of whether or not God is real.

---

The whole edifice rests on the answer to this question. So you can argue that ID needs to be called science. OK. Fine. If it makes good predictions, I'll repent and convert. If not, then its bad science anyway.

quote:

---

You opened this door, not me.

---

I don't know why you are so happy about that.

quote:

---

If you had enough such "coincidences" perhaps you would believe.

---

Then in fact, you are saying it is distiguishable from coincidence. Which is it?

quote:

---

However I have the feeling that you will rationalize away just about anything as a coincidence, no matter how extraordinary.

---

Of course, I have the feeling that you will rationalize any coincidence into evidence.But you are wrong about me. I would pay attention to extraodinary.

quote:

---

And even if God did heal a sick person right in front of you, what is to stop you from attributing it to "natural" causes?

---

If I watch a leg grow back I assure you I would not attribute it to 'natural' causes. There are cases that would convince me, and they are probably not as wild as you imagine.

quote:

---

In fact, in a universe with "natural" causes everywhere but an omnipotent and omniscient God present, how do you know anything that happens is "natural"?

---

George Berkeley held a similar belief to this. I like Berkeley. Terrible writer though. Dull like you wouldn't believe.

quote:

---

That's my problem with your beliefs, they are every bit as unfalsifiable and self-fulfilling as you claim mine are.

---

Sorry. No. My beliefs are quite falsifiable.

quote:

---

A "miracle"? No only a disease naturally going into remission, just as it would have done without prayer. You pray for three things and get all those things? Only coincidence!

---

It should all come out in the statistics. But you load the dice with the idea that God permiates everything and that it all could be God's work. That is unfalsifiable. Even in theory.

quote:

---

The self-fulfilling beliefs of the atheist are exactly like what they claim to be the self-fulfilling beliefs of the theist.

---

I hold nothing for which I cannot imagine a falsification. Nor do I attibute everything to natural causes. I attribute a lot to undefined.

quote:

---

Actually I spent quite a bit of time explaining how God is different from all your analogies, and how they would leave evidence and God would not.

​

Please try to introduce new information, rather than merely repeating yourself.

---

Please try to understand that I do not take what you say as gospel.It was in this post that you introduced the god-permiated universe idea. That is the only model that gets past those analogies. So drop the attitude.

quote:

---

Are you saying that Christians are "stupid", "evil", and "dishonest" because they are the dominant religion?

---

Do you really have this much trouble with comprehension? You seem to flying off on tangents quite a bit, mixing and matching cause and effect. The question is simple. You criticise me for voicing my opinion of your religion. A religion which I see as intrusive into my life ( primarily because it gets written into law and nobody notices or cares ). If the situation were reversed, what would you do?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
Just wanted to pop in and say something about "faith". I am reminded of Paul (from the NT) who actively pursued and persecuted the church. Did he earn faith? I don't think so. God just kinda "blind-sided" him *chuckling at my own little pun*. Paul in several places was overwhelmed by the fact that he had been saved .... "here is a worthwhile saying, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst." (1 Tim 1:5)

---

Yeah. This is an example illustrating why I am confused about gene's insistence that one must earn faith. I really can't a handle on that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Yeah, John...God is ultimately behind *everything*. Have you thought about that yet?

---

Yes. The idea is heavily imbedded in jewish mysticism, of which I am quite fond. The idea is also a part of numerous world religions-- Taoism comes to mind, for example.

quote:

---

How do you empirically test God if God is doing everything

---

You don't. The concept becomes unfalsifiable. The argument works equaly well for any god you plug into the blank, hence it pretty muchs negates itself. The question becomes "Which God?" Again, and unanswerable question.

quote:

---

The argument is invalid because it assumes that there are no "things" outside of our sensory experience. There is no basis for such an assumption.

---

Though you desperately want this argument to require the assumption that there is nothing outside of sensory experience, it does not require that assumption. Assume that you construct an argument with five premises-- the only ones you've got. You don't have to assume that no other premises exist. You build your argument based on what you've got.

quote:

---

Good, you're coming to terms with your own faith. Maybe now you won't ridicule faith so much.

---

LOL... you see it as a victory. I see it as the destruction of all human knowledge. At the very best, the idea that everything is faith-based puts every opinion, no matter how bizarre, on the same level. I have been aware of this since my second year phil classes. You can't, so far as I know, bootstrap your way out of this pit and into an firm knowledge of any kind.

quote:

---

You do have to refrain from rejecting it though. I contend that is not the same as believing.

---

Fine, but this contradicts what you have previously asserted.

quote:

---

So you actually do claim to have evidence "that there is no God".

---

How often do you need this answer repeated, gene? Are you ignoring my answers on purpose? I have repeatedly stated my position and you have repeatedly made the same misrepresentation. It only makes you look like you are up to something dishonest. I hope this isn't the case, but why else would you repeatedly claim that I maintain something exactly the opposite of what I have repeatedly stated?

quote:

---

Argument from personal incredulity.

---

You need to brush up on your fallacies. You provide an argument, which I consider faulty. You ASSERT that your argument is correct and then claim that it is argument from incredulity that I don't take your word for it? Are you really that arrogant?

quote:

---

Then, you are claiming that, by extension, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are both legitimate sciences? After all, it is your claim that God's influence on the world is testable.

---

Gene, I don't care if they are called actual sciences or not. Whatever you call them, neither has a case.

quote:

---

Not necessarily. I have only your assurance that "if a leg grew back" you would believe. But how could it be proven that God made the leg grow back?

---

A significant repeatable deviation from chance that can be correlated with a particular religion-- prayer, sacrifice, whatever-- would go a long way toward convincing me that the adherents of that religion knew something not known to science. I suppose you could always claim that there is no way to prove that it is really god, so in that sense, I suppose you are right. But I'll accept the some margins of error. I don't see that there is any choice, no matter what the subject. However, if one resists the urge to continue moving the goal posts of what god is backwards, we ought to be able to infer something like a God. For example, one could infer the Hebrew God by demonstrating the earth to be 6000 years old, or by demonstrating the Global Flood, or by demonstrating that slaughtering a dove cures leprosy. But since these tests fail, the goal posts get moved back.

quote:

---

(But then again, I'm not the one claiming that God's influence can even be detected).

---

Yes. And this is odd to me, knowing as you do that unverifiable theories are pretty useless.

quote:

---

I contend that allowing God's influence to "theoretically be detectable" does make ID a science, with or without a positive test result.

---

I don't care really. Calling it a science doesn't give it any more data than the none it already doesn't have.

quote:

---

That's exactly my point. God is unfalsifiable. How then can you possibly claim that you have falsified God if the notion is falsifiable?

---

Because, gene, I don't claim to have falsified God. I claim that there is no evidence for God.

quote:

---

Well then you can design the tests if you insist that the notion of a god is testable.

---

Seems to me that every experiment that shows an identifiable cause that isn't god is a test that god failed. Of course, defined as you define God, every effect is God, or God's doing. And it just becomes a mind game. I could say that Scotty the Blue Bunnyis an incarnation of this force and have it be as convincing.

quote:

---

I don't expect you to. In fact you're supposed to disagree with me. But I do expect that we both will do our best to keep the hand-waving to a minimum and produce rebuttals to the best of our abilities. I don't claim to have done perfectly but I feel like I'm making a valid effort.

---

Fair enough.

quote:

---

I criticize you for what appears to be religious intolerance.

---

I tolerate. I don't like and I don't have to like.

quote:

---

Move.

---

Yes. Though I happen to think that for all of its faults the US is still the best bet. Sometimes I wonder though.

quote:

---

Just because somebody else is makes me (as a Christian) "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest"?

---

No, it doesn't. But I don't judge individuals and don't form opinions about people until I know them. Frankly, this trait has caused me more trouble than good. I tend to give bad people too much lee-way.

quote:

---

Secondly you might as well realize that you live in Baptistland just like I do and that's the cultural affiliation of the place.

---

This means I must not protest? I'm not buying that logic.

quote:

---

If you went to Japan, would you be offended by the Taoist shrines? If you went to Mediterranean Europe would you be offended by the cathedrals?

---

Don't know really. But I doubt it, because it isn't the shrines or cathedrals that bother me. It is the people exhibiting the dominant behaviors and attitudes associated with the dominant religion. It is no different from criticing communism or fascism, except that you probably consider those things harmful and consider your faith beneficial. I consider all three harmful ( in practise, at least ).------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Amen and Amen

​

I agree with that for sure. I was wondering how to address the earning faith thing. Glad you said something.

​

---

Well, strangely enough, I'm siding with you guys on this one. The idea of earning faith just makes no sense to me.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
That's my point.

---

It is your point that belief in God is unfalsifiable? Fine. How does this help?

quote:

---

No, the question is not, "which God", the question is, "which model of God (religion) is most correct"?

---

Fine. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to make this point.

quote:

---

You do have to assume no falsifying premises exist, or else the argument is faulty.

---

The ASSUMPTION prevents the argument from being faulty? That is absurd. An argument is a self-contained system. The conclusion follows from the premises, or it doesn't. But ASSUMING that the ARGUMENT IS CORRECT-- which is exactly what you your statement equates to-- has no bearing on this.1) if A then B
2) A
3) therefore B.Do you assume that there is no not-B out there? Or a not-(if A then B)? NO!!!! #3 follows from #1 and #2. That's it. You are warping common sense and logic pretty far with this one.

quote:

---

This is your argument:

​

I claim that there is no evidence for God.

​

You are turning that into positive evidence that there is no God. Your claim is clearly invalid. How often will I have to repeat that?

---

I am not turning it into positive evidence. YOU ARE TURNING IT INTO POSITIVE EVIDENCE and calling it my claim. I have repeatedly corrected you on this. How many times do I have to repeat that? Respectfully, when did you become this dense?

quote:

---

We claim to be able to reach firm knowledge. See James 1:5.

---

I know that was a joke. That just has to be a joke.

quote:

---

Because disbelief in God is unfalsifiable, there is no "miracle" that cannot be rationalized away.

---

Don't you mean that the other way around? At any rate, I disagree.

quote:

---

I disagree.

---

Then you disagree based on your your own fantasies. You have no idea how I treat the people around around me.

quote:

---

If I put "Jews are evil" and "Jews are dishonest" on my personal website, would you conclude that I am a tolerant person?

---

Tolerance is about letting people live there lives. I bother no one unless bothered first. Come down off your pulpit.

quote:

---

You can protest laws you don't like but you can't protest the religion itself because they have as much a right to be there as you do. Probably more so because they go back further.

---

Religion is a concept, a philosophy, whether you like it or not. Its tenants are fair game, whether you like it or not. You sound just a half step from supporting censorship, gene. Is that your plan?

quote:

---

And intolerance such as you have demonstrated is not the same as a legitimate protest.

---

Intolerance as I have demonstrated? Have I assulted anyone on the street? Censored any books? Burned any churches? Sponsored any legislation to get Christians thrown to the lions? Nope. So drop it. You hate having your religion turned on the spit. Tough.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Just my opinion too. I believe that faith is God-given (therefore I am against missionaries) but salvation, either in this world or the next, has to be earned. Btw I am no Christian so maybe this is a different theology.

---

This is similar to how I have always understood it to work. Christian sects quibble about the earning salvation part though. Gene, as far as I can remember, is the first person I have heard claim that faith has to be earned.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
It means that if belief in God is unfalsifiable, and you claim to know there is no God, then, by definition, you have deceived yourself.

---

Gene, I have to just drop this because you are stubbornly refusing to listen to what I say. I can do no more. I have corrected this misstatement on your part half a dozen times now.

quote:

---

In order to justify atheism, you must demonstrate that God is falsifiable, and that God has been falsified.

---

Funny. You must have missed the other dozen times I have said that I claim there is no evidence for God, but not that there is positive evidence against.

quote:

---

Have you falsified God? And if not, how do you justify the active opposition of religion?

---

Technically, opposition to religion isn't necessarily opposition to God. Religion is a human endeavor, or can be considered such.

quote:

---

It amazes me how much effort you have put into dodging that.

---

Where did you buy your blinders, gene? There a hell of lot I'd rather not see.

quote:

---

Mostly, you've just claimed that "it isn't your argument".

---

Despite your stubborn repetition, it isn't my argument. What you have spent so much time fighting is something you have made up. I have corrected you numerous times, yet you refuse to correct your misunderstanding? I won't say what that does to you credibility. Tell me, gene, who knows what I believe with greater accuracy, you or me?

quote:

---

Well what is your argument? You stated it a short time ago, state it again.

---

I have already stated it yet agian in this thread, but I am quite confident that you will ignote that restatement once again.

quote:

---

You've become WORSE than Nos. At least Nos had a better sense of humor. If I'm going to have to tolerate offensive and ridiculous comments from you that duck the points and contribute nothing to the debate, please at least make them amusing to read.

---

You cited the Bible. That is fallacious and irrelevant on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

quote:

---

It works both ways. You were the one that brought up that argument, next time make sure that the argument only works one way.

---

The argument isn't reversable. If it is it becomes a tautology and that isn't an argument but a definition-- ie a "Gene says so."

quote:

---

Then I suppose you disagree based upon your own fantasies. After all, you provide no more supporting argument.

---

You've become WORSE than Nos. At least Nos had a better sense of humor. If I'm going to have to tolerate offensive and ridiculous comments from you that duck the points and contribute nothing to the debate, please at least make them amusing to read.

quote:

---

Therefore one is no more unreasonable than the other. Do you claim otherwise?

---

duh.... obviously!!!

quote:

---

Nope. You do what the KKK does. Hate-speech.

---

Gee, speech is bad ????? You are becoming a fine little censor. I don't like what the KKK has to say and most of it is easily dismantled, but stopping SPEECH is not something I support. Guess we differ substantially like that. By the way, you seem to have no problem stereotyping when it comes to the KKK. I happen to think christianity is every bit as horrible. Do I stop Christian speech? Nope. I respond in kind. But like I said, we are different like that.You are, by the way, illustrating exactly why I have such a problem with your faith. Thanks.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Only if you presuppose there is no God. Otherwise a religion might be the handiwork of God.

---

You must presuppose that there is a God. I do not have to presuppose the opposite. I can work with what evidence exists. I DO NOT have to presuppose that no other evidence exists. I can work with what is known, unlike you, who must assume something that isn't known.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Tell me, gene, who knows what I believe with greater accuracy, you or me?

---

​

I'm honestly not sure.

---

The arrogance of this statement is staggering. No wonder you don't pay attention. You already know what I think.

quote:

---

No, I merely responded to your point:

​

quote:

---

You can't, so far as I know, bootstrap your way out of this pit and into an firm knowledge of any kind.

---

---

Assuming you way out of it isn't the same thing as bootstrapping your way out. I can make any one of a thousand assumptions and get out. MAKING UP STUFF IS EASY.

quote:

---

Then there is more to your argument than merely, "there is no evidence for God", no matter how much you want to claim that I'm building strawmen when I point out that your claim is that there is no God.

---

Its obvious that you are building straw men. That is the only way that what you are saying makes any sense.

quote:

---

I agree with you, it is obvious that you are claiming more than merely a lack of evidence.

---

Nope. More of Gene's fantasy.

quote:

---

concede that your belief in no God is faith-based

---

I DON'T HAVE A BELIEF IN NO-GOD. I HAVE NO REASON FOR A BELIEF IN GOD. It isn't the same thing. Do you have a belief in no-PlanetX, or do you have no reason to believe in PlanetX? Do you have a belief in no-extraterestrial life, or do you have no reason ( I assume ) to believe in extra-terrestrial life? The two claims are not the same, Gene. This is truly getting absurd.

quote:

---

I'm not advocating any kind of censorship here.

---

Like bloody hell.

quote:

---

I'm calling you a bigot

---

Though the term doesn't fit.

quote:

---

and pointing out your lack of religious tolerance. This is yet another example:

​

quote:

---

I happen to think christianity is every bit as horrible. (as the KKK)

---

---

Again you object to speech. You object to my having an different opinion than you. You object to my expressing that opinion. I happen to think the KKK is nightmarish and that Satanists are idiots. I happen to think that Crowley's followers are psychotic and that Crowley himself was insane, but with a spark of brilliance that occasionally came thorugh. I think environmentalists are blinded by their own dogmas and that that tobacco companies are murderous. Are you going to fault me for that? Really, you must, to be consistent. And perhaps you will, to maintain your pose. But the truth is that this isn't about fairness, truth, justice, freedom, and the American way. It is about Gene not liking his religion criticised.

quote:

---

And likewise, you represent every negative stereotype of the atheist I know of.

---

Like falsely accusing a stranger of pedophilia? Like insisting that ideas be censored cause they hurt Gene's feelings? Like resorting to personal attacks? Yeah, I suck.

quote:

---

quote:

---

By the way, you seem to have no problem stereotyping when it comes to the KKK.

---

​

LOL!!!

---

The funny bit is that Gene can criticise an organization he dislikes, but refuses to allow the criticism of organizations he likes. You never told me where you bought those blinders?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-13-2002]

Chara's post seems to be missing.It was post #182, though now this one has that number.Chara, did you erase it?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

I can work with what is known, unlike you, who must assume something that isn't known.

---

​

Then you claim that there is evidence that there is no God?

---

I do not claim that there is evidence that there is no GOD. Jesus Christ, Gene !!!!!! I keep telling you what I believe and you keep stating the exact opposite. What kind of rationality is that? What kind of good faith effort at debate is that?

quote:

---

Then do you have reason to believe in no-God? Or are you running on faith? Or do you not know if I am right or wrong? Which is it?

---

BLOODY HELL... I said way back in post #43-- a response to you no less-- that I am technically agnostic. Wanna see?

quote:

---

I don't object to your freedom of speech, I just think you're a bigot (and other things). In fact I think your freedom to say offensive things only supports my opinions of your character.

---

Your opinions hardly matter to me anymore, after this dose of the holy spirit. And now that I understand that being a bigot means "not agreeing with gene" it has kinda lost its bite.

quote:

---

More like Gene not liking being called, "evil", "dishonest", "stupid", and other things simply for being a Christian.

---

Excuse me, did I start this by saying GENE IS SOMETHING_OFFENSIVE? Nope. You imported the insults because you didn't like what I had to say about your post. You violated the rules of the board and basic common sense rules behavior. I didn't fill your name into the blanks and start spouting garbage. Whatever I may think of your religion, I did not bring it into this debate and I did not run you through a rumor mill. You did both. I treated you like I treat everybody. I built an opinion of you based on, in your case, how you respond to my comments here on this board. I'd have done the same if we met in person.

quote:

---

You said yourself that I should not have called you a bigot and a pedophile because I don't know you. How do you like it?

---

You have a real problem distinguishing between the general and the specific. Not to mention that problem you have of doing precisely what you don't want others doing.

quote:

---

And besides, your website supports my claims on your character. You have nothing but this board to assert that I personally am "evil", "stupid", "dishonest", etc. and you have absolutely nothing to assert that all my fellow Christians are those things.

---

You never answered my question. If I attacked the Church of Satan or the KKK, would you object? Or do you only get on your moral hobby-horse when someone criticises what Gene approves of? What about abortion? Is that an appropriate topic? May I criticise abortion clinic protesters? Alcohol manufacturers? Drug dealers? I don't know them either. Maybe you could post Gene's list of appropriate topics for criticism? Or maybe not. You've avoided the question twice now. Probably because you don't object to the criticism of groups like the KKK, or the Satanists; but you know that makes you damned hypocritical.

quote:

---

If you don't want to be called nasty things you should (1) not have given credence to support being called those things and (2) not have called other people nasty things.

---

Talk about flip-flopping flexible standards!!! Two wrongs make a right. You did it so I can too!!!!!!! LOL........ This is you justification for your lies and slander? !!!!!! ???????? And you object to my negative attitudes about christianity. LOLLLLLLLLLLLL..........------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
God punishes us for disobeying him yes, but out of love not anger. He seeks to correct us not to get revenge.

---

It doesn't matter why he does it. For whatever reason god punishes, the act of punishing serves to prod people into servitude. Hence, the claim that it is servitude of your own free will is tainted by the threat of punishment. If you wife slept with another man, would you be mad? Prolly. But if that other man held her at gunpoint? See the difference. God has us at gunpoint.

quote:

---

quote:

---

At which point you responded saying, no I could not affect my cat's free will because I was not God.

---

​

By this logic a man cannot have the same effect on another man as God can.

---

Then you have conflated different arguments, and misunderstood at least one of them.You don't effect your cat's free will because you knowledge is not absolute. God's knowledge, in theory, is abolute and infallible.

quote:

---

Now for one I was not speaking of an emotional reaction to a book. I was talking about a change in my very nature.

---

Ummmm .... me too.

quote:

---

Brought about by God.

---

So you say. But I experienced the very same thing and you are desperately trying to argue that I didn't. Shall I argue that you didn't experience it either? I don't have to really. Any rationalization you have for my experience works for your as well. That is the problem.

quote:

---

What you were saying about Crowley is an emotional response to a book.

---

As is what happened to you, in relation to the word of God.

quote:

---

I'm saying how can you equate a feeling you got from Crowley's book to a change in nature brought about by God.

---

The same way you equate the feeling you got from the NT ( or the preacher, or whatever ) with a change brought about by God.

quote:

---

It's not even in the same league.

---

You don't know that. You have to believe it, but you don't know it. When I read that book, scales fell from my eyes. Or so I felt. I was floating on air for weeks and convinced, devoted even, for years. Even now, the core idea of that book is firmly entrenched in my being. I am also the first to admit that the man was largely insane, but that is another story.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Good. We've ruled that possibility out.

---

Coulda been ruled out long ago if you had bothered to read my posts.

quote:

---

I can only think of two possibilities that remain: (1) Your position is faith-based, just as theism is or (2) for all you know I might be right.

---

I can think of a third.(3) My position is based on what information actually exists and not on what information might exist. My arguments rest upon what evidence actually exists, not on what evidence might exist. Your insistence that I must postulate negatives is just silly. Maybe I'll also postulate that there are no invisible aliens pushing down on our heads and thereby simulating gravity. I'd never finish writing the argument because there would always be another negative to postulate.

quote:

---

If (1) is correct, then you are in no position to ridicule the concept of faith. If (2), you are in no position to rail against my belief system.

---

If (3) is correct, and it is, then I have no worries.

quote:

---

That's odd because an agnostic claims to lack enough evidence to discern whether or not there is a God

---

No kidding? Funny I have been saying this all along.

quote:

---

hardly one who could honestly rule out any belief system.

---

So you say. Guess I should have asked permission, eh? "God" does not equate to "belief system"

quote:

---

Incidentally, I've never encountered anyone who would confess to be an atheist. Even the most violently anti-religious people often claim to be "agnostics". Fundies claim that this is to avoid the social stigmas associated with the title of "atheist".

---

Incidentally, this matters why?

quote:

---

A lot of people on this board don't agree with me, but I'm not calling them bigots, because most of them don't call me "stupid", "evil", and "dishonest" simply because of my religion.

---

Come now Gene, bet you never called them pedophiles either?Of course you continually gloss over the fact that I have not been disrespectful to you on this board. Whatever I may think of your religion, I have not attacked you for it.

quote:

---

But if it loses its bite, good. Maybe your arguments will improve.

---

No need, as your are so bad.

quote:

---

I see something evil about the KKK but not Christianity.

---

Glad you finally admit that it does boil down to what gene likes and what gene doesn't like. I do see something profoundly evil in christianity. Oops.... I forgot. Gene doesn't like that sort of talk ( unless it is directed against a Gene-approved target ).

quote:

---

The KKK has a political mandate, the church does not.

---

Sorry, but you are not paying attention to the world around you.

quote:

---

If you hate minorities you join the KKK.

---

More slander, gene? Couldn't resist one more cheap shot? God tell you I hate minorities, because I damn sure didn't?

quote:

---

There is some difference there, but you don't see it, and your past comments equating the KKK with Christianity have, as far as I'm concerned, permanently destroyed your credibility.

---

Wow. Gene asserts that he's right!!!!! Stop the presses.

quote:

---

What would drive you to hate Christianity so much I will never know, but I think you've shot yourself in the foot with your Klan remarks.

---

Of course not. You are part of it. Where did you get those blinders? You never said.

quote:

---

It was justified.

---

Gimme some a that holy spirit!!!!!!!!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com