Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[hertz vanrental]

Those who would worship god on a stick and other false idols must repent lest they incur the wrath of Lord Shiva when they die for his power is immense.

Those who would not repent will be cast into the darkest pits and will be tormented for eternity.

Repent now, sinner christards, whilst there is yet time for no one knows when thy days will be thine last.

Repent.

Just sayin'.

[hertz vanrental]

When cat licker mary was a girl
She had a little quim
She used to pull her knickers down
And stick one finger in
But now that mary's older
Her finger's lost it's charm
'Cos android has had his head in
And half his fuckin' arm.

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

Nope, nope, narrow minded... IQ only 5.

I am absolutely NOT narrow minded.

I am willing to believe anything for which demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic is presented.

There is one aspect only which could be argued as circular with regards to the assertions made in the Bible, and that is

The written text in the Bible comprises the word of God - whereby the only evidence to this comes from the written text which states so.

And that is the most important aspect.

Where it the evidence EXTERNAL to the Bible which confirms any of the god and miracle claims in the Bible?

But firstly, just because "circular" that does not mean it aint true fool.

This is sort of true.

An invalid and unsound syllogism can have a true conclusion, but the conclusion was not derived from the flawed syllogism. It might be a lucky guess, or it might be known from other source.

If all one has is a flawed syllogism for their conclusion, there is no way to know if it is actually true.

One can't use flawed reasoning and guarantee they will reach a true conclusion. The conclusion is correct, despite the flawed logic.

Here is an example of a unsound syllogism with a true conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, yet it is still true.

(1) All humans are dogs. False

(2) Lassie is a human. False

(3) Lassie is a dog. True

Lets say hypothetically that by a miracle its true, yes.. The written text of the Bible truly is the Word of God, and part of that message is to let us know that.

Not sure I quite understand this...

But, even if a miracle in the Bible can be proven to be true, it does not follow logically, that the god claims must also be true. You are making an unsupported assertion that the only way to have miracles, is if a god exists. How did you eliminate the possibility of a person that is not a god, having magical powers?

Then even though you may think the concept is circular, in this hypothetical example it is true nontheless.

Therefore your complaint is worthless.

Logic is a tool used to tell if a conclusion is supported by the arguments. If one's logic is flawed, there is no way to tell if the conclusion is true.

Again, Muslims use circular logic, exactly the same way you are advocating here, and they reach a completely different conclusion (the truth of the Koan) than you do.

How am I, a person outside of BOTH religions, if all I am given is flawed logic, able to tell which one of you is correct?

And I don't even need to go to my second point, many of the other statements within the Bible are straightforward historical accounts - nothing circular about journalistic reporting.

Sure, there is no question that the Bible does contain SOME true historical accounts. So what? The Bible also contains a lot of historically inaccurate events, and events known not have happened. I can list them if you want...

How do some historical accurate accounts in the Bible give any credence to the supernatural god and miracle claims?

Homer's Iliad and Odyssey also mention real cities, people that actually existed, accounts of actual wars and battles, etc. Does that mean the god claims also contained in those texts are also true?

And by the way, do you know how the historically accurate accounts in the Bible were confirmed to be accurate?

By comparing them to other accounts external to the Bible. Historians do not believe any historical events are true just because they are in the Bible, they need to confirm them independently.

[JerryJohn]

Simon,

I believe you ARE close minded because you will not entertain even the possibility God exists demanding proof that meets YOUR requirements to believe.

The fact of the matter is you have free will and are free to rejcect the obvious fact that there IS indeed a God. If you are wrong, which you are you will be excused by God by the ignorance clause.

You have tried to understand but could never get there.

JJ

[hertz vanrental]

Simon Moon wrote

I am absolutely NOT narrow minded.

I am willing to believe anything for which demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic is presented.




And that is the most important aspect.

Where it the evidence EXTERNAL to the Bible which confirms any of the god and miracle claims in the Bible?



This is sort of true.

An invalid and unsound syllogism can have a true conclusion, but the conclusion was not derived from the flawed syllogism. It might be a lucky guess, or it might be known from other source.

If all one has is a flawed syllogism for their conclusion, there is no way to know if it is actually true.

One can't use flawed reasoning and guarantee they will reach a true conclusion. The conclusion is correct, despite the flawed logic.

Here is an example of a unsound syllogism with a true conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, yet it is still true.

(1) All humans are dogs. False

(2) Lassie is a human. False

(3) Lassie is a dog. True




Not sure I quite understand this...

But, even if a miracle in the Bible can be proven to be true, it does not follow logically, that the god claims must also be true. You are making an unsupported assertion that the only way to have miracles, is if a god exists. How did you eliminate the possibility of a person that is not a god, having magical powers?




Logic is a tool used to tell if a conclusion is supported by the arguments. If one's logic is flawed, there is no way to tell if the conclusion is true.

Again, Muslims use circular logic, exactly the same way you are advocating here, and they reach a completely different conclusion (the truth of the Koan) than you do.

How am I, a person outside of BOTH religions, if all I am given is flawed logic, able to tell which one of you is correct?



Sure, there is no question that the Bible does contain SOME true historical accounts. So what? The Bible also contains a lot of historically inaccurate events, and events known not have happened. I can list them if you want...

How do some historical accurate accounts in the Bible give any credence to the supernatural god and miracle claims?

Homer's Iliad and Odyssey also mention real cities, people that actually existed, accounts of actual wars and battles, etc. Does that mean the god claims also contained in those texts are also true?

And by the way, do you know how the historically accurate accounts in the Bible were confirmed to be accurate?

By comparing them to other accounts external to the Bible. Historians do not believe any historical events are true just because they are in the Bible, they need to confirm them independently.

Simon

All respect to you for responding to IQ 6 and mary. I used to but, for the sake of my sanity, I ceased. Now, I use both as chew sticks and for entertainment for that is their only worth. They are intellectually challenged and their knowledge base is somewhat lacking. That's putting it mildly. I mainly put this down to their religtardological beliefs and upbringing but, I must admit, there may be additional reasons above and beyond this.

You are better concentrating solely on the present day rather than on history. Anything older than the last 5 minutes seems to be a challenge too far for them.

Because of their upbringing, they have been brainwashed into believing that everything that is christard in nature is true absolutely and requires no proof of itself. According to them, if it's in the babble, it is true. The babble is the gold standard by which they judge external christardological data. That's because, according to them, the babble is the indisputable word of god. We both understand that this leads to circular reasoning but, in their warped minds, it doesn't because the babble is the word of god and therefore needs no further proof.

In fact, this lack of recognition of circular reasoning must be a sign of brainwashing, no?

Quite how they handle their cognitive dissonance, which must be astronomically large, I am unsure of. Perhaps they are able to compartmentalise it or, maybe, through their brainwashing, they are able to ignore or deal with it, though how is a mystery to me. Surely, this is worthy of a PhD thesis?

As soon as I realised just how deep their brainwashing raelly is, I ignored them and now solely used them as chew sticks and for entertainment purposes. There seems little point in doing anything else.

Brainwashing seems particularly deep in cat lickers, of which mary is one. I'm beginning to suspect that, in IQ 6, there may be one of an identical persuasion. We therefore may well have stereo cat lickers - which would explain a lot. If IQ 6 isn't an actual cat licker, then he may be a neo cat licker.

[hertz vanrental]

mary mary pudding and pie
kissed the boys and made them cry
when the girls came out to play
she kissed them too, she's funny that way.

[JerryJohn]

For those of you, everyone but Simon (currently posting) your outright rejection and mocking of God could very well lead you to hell; there is no escape once you are there.

The only reason you feel the need to not just reject the concept of God but to mock others who believe there is one, is due to your insecurity in your own belief and doubt that you may be wrong.

Shape out or ship down to hell.

JJ

[hertz vanrental]

The Lord Shiva sees all and hears all. He sees and hears christards worshipping false gods. He is vexed indeed. Should christards not repent, he will banish them to the dark and deep for all of eternity when they appear before him, as ultimately they all must.

Just sayin' is all.

[Simon Moon]

JerryJohn wrote

Simon,

I believe you ARE close minded because you will not entertain even the possibility God exists demanding proof that meets YOUR requirements to believe.

One of the main reasons I constantly engage theists in these types of conversations, is because I do entertain the possibility that a god exists. One of my main motivations in life is to have as many true beliefs as possible, and eliminate as many false beliefs as possible. If a god exists, I want to know about it.

But what other requirements should I use, than my own?

I have one set of tools I use to evaluate every existential claim. Those being: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, valid and sound logic, and reasoned argument.

If the claim does not meet those requirements, what should be my justification to believe it is true?

The reason why I use these tools, is because they consistently have proven themselves to be the best path to truth.

Why should I lower the bar and use other tools to evaluate god claims? Just so they are able to clear the lower bar? One thing I am not, is intellectually dishonest.

If I lower the bar enough to allow the claim that gods exist to clear, I would also have to allow all sorts of other unsupported claims to clear, due to the same lack of evidence and reasoned argument.

The fact of the matter is you have free will and are free to rejcect the obvious fact that there IS indeed a God. If you are wrong, which you are you will be excused by God by the ignorance clause.

You have tried to understand but could never get there.

JJ

If it was an obvious fact, I would believe it.

If it was an obvious fact, this debate would not have continued for millennia. There have been atheists for as long as there have been religions.

[Simon Moon]

hertz vanrental wrote

Simon

All respect to you for responding to IQ 6 and mary. I used to but, for the sake of my sanity, I ceased. Now, I use both as chew sticks and for entertainment for that is their only worth. They are intellectually challenged and their knowledge base is somewhat lacking. That's putting it mildly. I mainly put this down to their religtardological beliefs and upbringing but, I must admit, there may be additional reasons above and beyond this.

I get it.

When I used to post here under a different account, there used to be quite a few more atheists that engaged these guys with attempts at rational discussion. This was an obvious failure.

For many of them, there was a turning point where they gave up and just turned to insult, as you did.

I am not quite there yet, but their ignorance of basic logic and skepticism is a challenge.

[JerryJohn]

Simon Moon wrote

One of the main reasons I constantly engage theists in these types of conversations, is because I do entertain the possibility that a god exists. One of my main motivations in life is to have as many true beliefs as possible, and eliminate as many false beliefs as possible. If a god exists, I want to know about it.

But what other requirements should I use, than my own?

I have one set of tools I use to evaluate every existential claim. Those being: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, valid and sound logic, and reasoned argument.

If the claim does not meet those requirements, what should be my justification to believe it is true?

The reason why I use these tools, is because they consistently have proven themselves to be the best path to truth.

Why should I lower the bar and use other tools to evaluate god claims? Just so they are able to clear the lower bar? One thing I am not, is intellectually dishonest.

If I lower the bar enough to allow the claim that gods exist to clear, I would also have to allow all sorts of other unsupported claims to clear, due to the same lack of evidence and reasoned argument.

If it was an obvious fact, I would believe it.

If it was an obvious fact, this debate would not have continued for millennia. There have been atheists for as long as there have been religions.

It IS an obvious fact that God exists and you SHOULD believe it. The problem is your heart is hardened and brainwashed by the "logical crowd" who themselves disagree on exactly what IS and consists of logic. (Check out "The Logical Song" by Supertramp.)

The problem is that you do not believe that the Bible is the written and Inspired Word of God. Therefore, you cannot discern the truth. You instead rely on fallible humans that you think have it right. Who is to say the scientists that are theists are not right? Just because they are in the minority does not mean they are wrong.

Sometimes logic that is of human nature can fail miserably. Rethink your position on who has the better truth, God or a handful of humans that just happen to believe the same as you do, while you discard the others that are scientists, I might add as wrong. The reason you reject them if you would face the truth is that they disagree with your "logical" point of view.

Thoughts to consider.

JJ

[JerryJohn]

Simon Moon wrote

I get it.

When I used to post here under a different account, there used to be quite a few more atheists that engaged these guys with attempts at rational discussion. This was an obvious failure.

For many of them, there was a turning point where they gave up and just turned to insult, as you did.

I am not quite there yet, but their ignorance of basic logic and skepticism is a challenge.

This works both ways Simon. MOST atheists on this site act and discuss issues like raving adolescent idiots.

JJ

[JerryJohn]

Simon,

Andrew and I know who you are and what screen name you previously posted under. It is so obvious. That's OK, sometimes someone needs a change.

I still find it odd you changed your user name though considering you were never rude or insulting in any way.

Why did you do it again? I know you posted it once but to be honest I didn't pay too much attention to that post, until soon it became obvious who you are and then I was too lazy quite frankly to read through a bunch of crapola atheist posts to find it.

Why?

JJ

[Simon Moon]

JerryJohn wrote

It IS an obvious fact that God exists and you SHOULD believe it.

Demonstrable evidence and reasoned arguments please...

The problem is your heart is hardened and brainwashed by the "logical crowd" who themselves disagree on exactly what IS and consists of logic. (Check out "The Logical Song" by Supertramp.)

Not so. There is no such thing as different logic. There is just logic.

The logical absolutes, are always true. The law of noncontradiction, the law of identity, the law of excluded middle are attributes of reality.

Funny, how logic and evidence work for advancements and invention of: modern medicine, physics, aeronautics, automobiles, cell phones, the drastic increase of human life spans in the last 100 years, criminal science, etc, etc, etc. Yet, you want to give it up when it comes to belief in your god.

I'll bet you go to the doctor when you or a family member gets sick, and not rely on prayer. I'll bet you would not board a plane that was designed using faith or ancient texts, instead of the logic and evidence method that is used.

The problem is that you do not believe that the Bible is the written and Inspired Word of God.

This it true, but it is not a problem. I also don't believe the Book of Mormon, the Koran or the Vedas are the inspired words of other gods.

The problem really is, that you believe the Bible is evidence for your claim, when in true fact, it IS the claim.

Using the Bible to prove the claims in the Bible is, wait for it.... circular reasoning. The Muslims also claim that the Koran is proof of the claims withing the Koran.

If that form of reasoning does not work for the Loran, it won't work for the Bible.

Therefore, you cannot discern the truth.

Sure I can. Not having a presupposition that the Bible is true does not preclude me from discerning the truth.

You instead rely on fallible humans that you think have it right. Who is to say the scientists that are theists are not right?

I rely on the set of tool that have shown to be the most reliable path to truth.

You are also relying in fallible humans. The texts that you are relying on, were not written until decades or more after the alleged events, by anonymous authors, who were not eyewitnesses, and they contain contradictions. We have no originals, so there is no way to tell if they are even accurate copies of the originals, and it is known for a fact that there are several added passages, that are not in the oldest versions of the texts (Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, John 21 to name a few) .


You are suggesting I use the same tools, that lead 1.5 billion Muslims and 1.1 billion Hindus to the wrong (according to you) beliefs.

Sometimes logic that is of human nature can fail miserably. Rethink your position on who has the better truth, God or a handful of humans that just happen to believe the same as you do, while you discard the others that are scientists, I might add as wrong. The reason you reject them if you would face the truth is that they disagree with your "logical" point of view.

Thoughts to consider.

I do not believe there is a god, so how could I believe it has 'the better truth'?

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

I am absolutely NOT narrow minded.

I am willing to believe anything for which demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic is presented.




And that is the most important aspect.

Where it the evidence EXTERNAL to the Bible which confirms any of the god and miracle claims in the Bible?



This is sort of true.

An invalid and unsound syllogism can have a true conclusion, but the conclusion was not derived from the flawed syllogism. It might be a lucky guess, or it might be known from other source.

If all one has is a flawed syllogism for their conclusion, there is no way to know if it is actually true.

One can't use flawed reasoning and guarantee they will reach a true conclusion. The conclusion is correct, despite the flawed logic.

Here is an example of a unsound syllogism with a true conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, yet it is still true.

(1) All humans are dogs. False

(2) Lassie is a human. False

(3) Lassie is a dog. True




Not sure I quite understand this...

But, even if a miracle in the Bible can be proven to be true, it does not follow logically, that the god claims must also be true. You are making an unsupported assertion that the only way to have miracles, is if a god exists. How did you eliminate the possibility of a person that is not a god, having magical powers?




Logic is a tool used to tell if a conclusion is supported by the arguments. If one's logic is flawed, there is no way to tell if the conclusion is true.

Again, Muslims use circular logic, exactly the same way you are advocating here, and they reach a completely different conclusion (the truth of the Koan) than you do.

How am I, a person outside of BOTH religions, if all I am given is flawed logic, able to tell which one of you is correct?



Sure, there is no question that the Bible does contain SOME true historical accounts. So what? The Bible also contains a lot of historically inaccurate events, and events known not have happened. I can list them if you want...

How do some historical accurate accounts in the Bible give any credence to the supernatural god and miracle claims?

Homer's Iliad and Odyssey also mention real cities, people that actually existed, accounts of actual wars and battles, etc. Does that mean the god claims also contained in those texts are also true?

And by the way, do you know how the historically accurate accounts in the Bible were confirmed to be accurate?

By comparing them to other accounts external to the Bible. Historians do not believe any historical events are true just because they are in the Bible, they need to confirm them independently.

A few points.

First off, the historic truth of stories or accounts in the bible are mostly validated, not by external sources, but rather by differing authors within the Bible.

As I keep telling everyone here, it is not that important to find an External source to the Bible to validate the truth of the Bible. The Bible is 66 books, most written by differing authors, the differing books can authenticate other books passages.

You mention how can supernatural appearing claims be validated. Obviously a scholar would have to look at any such claim with extreme skeptism. But as I have written the main "supernatural" claim in the bible which serves as the basis to the Christian faith is validated by mainstream historic scholarship in that there is general agreement that

a) Jesus existed
b) Jesus died on the cross under Pontious Pilate
c) Followers genuinely believed to see Jesus post mortum.

You can try to deny a, b and/ or c, but each assertion unto themselves holds intellectual water. To deny the resurrection narrative (truth of resurrection) one has to ignore historic scholarship type skeptical analysis of the records.

I'm glad you saw the merit of my argument that just because the concept regarding the divinity of the Words of the Bible is circular - that bares no weight - one cannot tell - if the conclusion is true or untrue. For this reason it really shouldn't be mentioned in Atheistic rhetoric - no value.