Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

But I'm glad Hurtz see's the possibility that God may exist!!!

You've been here for quite a few years, and yet you still haven't seemed to get the concept that many atheists (probably the majority) do not claim, with 100% certainty, that a god does not exist.

For most atheists, their atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

My atheism will last exactly as long as, the case theists present for the existence of their god, does not meet its burden of proof.

Here's a question for you, since you are glad that Hertz sees the possibility that your god may exist. Do see the possibility that other gods may exist, besides the one you believe exists?

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

You've been here for quite a few years, and yet you still haven't seemed to get the concept that many atheists (probably the majority) do not claim, with 100% certainty, that a god does not exist.

For most atheists, their atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

My atheism will last exactly as long as, the case theists present for the existence of their god, does not meet its burden of proof.

Here's a question for you, since you are glad that Hertz sees the possibility that your god may exist. Do see the possibility that other gods may exist, besides the one you believe exists?

Sure

I agree

What's the problem?

Why I think its interesting and important that "most Atheists" admit that there may possibly be a God, is that this tiny mustard seed of open ness to the possibility comprises a bare minimal shred of belief.

Belief being a relative scale of course. No belief, incredibly weak belief, weak belief, moderate believe, strong belief etc.

So when your faced with Jesus in the thrown room and its indicated that "belief" that he was God is a requirement so you don't burn in torment, then you can correctly state I had a very very very very weak belief.

Get it?

Its sort of a legal loop hole - if you take Christian doctrines seriously.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Sure, just bring by a Muslim who's almost as stupid as you to post here and we'll make fun of them too.

I'll believe it when I see it.
I could look for old Muslim posts to see if the responses are relatively tame.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

You don't get it.
Watch "Stepford Wives"
You are just a walking textbook, try to open your mind and try using your imagination.
You want a God to "control" human activities - this is tyranny. Where is the line, many people are outraged by certain activities, which are considered basic human rights to others. Its fun to occasionally do "naughty" things, not with the God you suggest is necessary. Also without evil how can exist the virtues of charity, bravery, heroics!
Your world exists according to Christianity in heaven perhaps, but not earth.
Earth has evil, so it can be felt, hated, - so heaven can be, for some, best appreciated.
Perhaps if you take earth (evil) in context of heaven (no evil) the notion of God and evil may make some further sense to you.

How many fucking times?! I don't want "god/gods" to do anything because I do not believe any gods exist (I am an atheist if you hadn't already realised).

What I am doing is merely demonstrating to you what you seem unable to perceive yourself; namely, the incoherence of your own (since apparently, you still claim to be some flavour of christian) religion's stance with regard to the properties of their version of a god.

I do what I do in life in a large part to spite evil and suffering where I see it, yet I would gladly give up medicine if the human mind and body were not capable of going so pitifully, reliably and dangerously awry.

Your twisted and fucked up little worldview actually celebrates suffering (?!?!?) Nowhere is this is more disgustingly epitomised than in christianity's fetishisation of the crucifixion.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

I could look for old Muslim posts to see if the responses are relatively tame.

You're probably too dumb to use the search function ....

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15837

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

Sure
Why I think its interesting and important that "most Atheists" admit that there may possibly be a God, is that this tiny mustard seed of open ness to the possibility comprises a bare minimal shred of belief.

Fist of all, I don't know how anyone would be able to discern whether it is 'possible' that a god exists. Just because something may not be impossible, does not mean it is possible.

Second, having 'openness' does not, in any way comprise having a 'bare minimal shred of belief'.

I am completely open to accepting that a god exists. All it would take to convince me, is if I am presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim. But since that criteria has not been met, I have zero belief that a god does exist. Not even minimal shred.

Belief being a relative scale of course. No belief, incredibly weak belief, weak belief, moderate believe, strong belief etc.

Yes, as David Hume said, "the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence".

And since the evidence does not support even the weakest belief, I have none. And yes, I've seen your threads presenting your 'evidence', and sorry to say, they are, shall we say, somewhat inadequate. I've also read about a dozen apologetics books, by: Craig, Strobel, McDowell, Lewis, and they are no less fallacious than anything I've read here.

So when your faced with Jesus in the thrown room and its indicated that "belief" that he was God is a requirement so you don't burn in torment, then you can correctly state I had a very very very very weak belief.

I have no justification to believe I will ever be 'faced with Jesus in the thrown room'. At present, I have zero belief in any gods.

Get it?

Its sort of a legal loop hole - if you take Christian doctrines seriously.

Seems like you are king of implying Pascal's Wager here.

Well, at least you are one of the only theists who admits it's a loophole.

So, do you do the same with Allah just in case you are faced with him? Don't want to burn in torment in Jahannam, right? From all I've read, Jahannam is quite a bit worse than hell.

[Sinfidel]

JerryJohn wrote

I don't feel like going back through the posts but if you were referring to Christians doing terrible crimes just assuming they can then confess their sins and have a clean slate you were dead wrong as usual.

Of course Jesus died for our sins and everlasting life.

What do you as an atheist do when you have, after all of course, looted, stolen, lied, cheated raped, and murdered?

JJ

If god is not responsible for evil, despite being All powerful, All knowing, Omnipresent, and having everything go according to his plan, explain the cases of clergy moral failures including molesting children.
Most clergy claim to have received a "calling" from god. How could god recruit a person of whom he has full knowledge will molest children? How can god not be complicit in the crime?

there is nothing notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even about theology, and not many of them are honest. One may forgive a Communist or a Single Taxer on the ground that there is something the matter with his ductless glands, and that a Winter in the south of France would relieve him. But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced, well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently, like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely, but even reverently, and with our mouths open.

Menchen

[Simon Moon]

Simon Moon wrote

I am completely open to accepting that a god exists. All it would take to convince me, is if I am presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim. But since that criteria has not been met, I have zero belief that a god does exist. Not even minimal shred.

Just to add, if one did have a 'minimal shred of belief' in the existence of a god, you know what that would make them? A THEIST!

I kind of figured that was pretty obvious, but then, I forgot who I was talking to.

This is not rocket science.

Atheism means - without belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Being an atheist does not mean that I am not open to the existence of gods. And it does not mean that I am absolutely certain that gods do not exist.

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

Just to add, if one did have a 'minimal shred of belief' in the existence of a god, you know what that would make them? A THEIST!

I kind of figured that was pretty obvious, but then, I forgot who I was talking to.

This is not rocket science.

Atheism means - without belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Being an atheist does not mean that I am not open to the existence of gods. And it does not mean that I am absolutely certain that gods do not exist.

Your wrong.

I'm sure I'm correct to say your 100% not open to the possibility that an invisible unicorn spaghetti monster is presently 10 cm in front of you doing the chicken dance - correct? This is true, unequivocal disbelief.

But by you're own words you are open to existence of a god or gods.

So your level of disbelief is greater (at 0% belief) for the unicorn spaghetti monster as compared to the possibility of a God (so > 0% belief) - so that's a "shred" (absolute bare minimal level) of belief. Biblically we like to say "mustard seed".

Just a different way of looking at it.

My point ultimately is that Atheists could theoretically "hope" that a God exists (and therefore have a shot at a joyful eternal life etc.) - but it would be absurd to hope for the unicorn spaghetti monster.

Capice?

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Your [sic] wrong.

I'm sure I'm correct to say your [sic] 100% not open to the possibility that an invisible unicorn spaghetti monster is presently 10 cm in front of you doing the chicken dance - correct? This is true, unequivocal disbelief.

But by you're own words you are open to existence of a god or gods.

So your level of disbelief is greater (at 0% belief) for the unicorn spaghetti monster as compared to the possibility of a God (so > 0% belief) - so that's a "shred" (absolute bare minimal level) of belief. Biblically we like to say "mustard seed".

Just a different way of looking at it.

My point ultimately is that Atheists could theoretically "hope" that a God exists (and therefore have a shot at a joyful eternal life etc.) - but it would be absurd to hope for the unicorn spaghetti monster.

Capice?

Scientifically we like to say "learn the difference between possibility and probability as you conflate the two in every sentence you spout about hope."

There, all fixed.

[The Judge]

JerryJohn wrote

Judge,

I wanted to respond to this sooner but wanted to give it some thought before I did. Thanks for discussing some of your background and your "journey" to atheism. Quite frankly, it sounds like you were in a living hell for a long time struggling with OCD with scrupulosity.

I am no fan of Roman Catholicism and feel with its rule and "regulations" of mortal/venial sin it leads in and of itself to instilling scrupulous thoughts in some who may not have even been predisposed to them to begin with. I have read some of the Catholic forums my secretary reads and was struck by the number of threads with people asking if the most minute things were a sin.

It was extremely sad to me to read such struggles with a denomination and spending a lifetime thinking and wondering if every single thing you thought/said/did was a sin and you might be damned forever for one slight of the "rules." I find it a depressing example of how religion goes wrong.

Of course, being a theist I have to wonder if you were raised in a mainstream Protestant Church that does not have such an emphasis on minutia if you would have remained a Christian. Therefore, I chalk up some of your experience to the "pitfaulls" of Catholicism. You are not alone with struggling with OCD/Scrupulosity in Catholicism for it seemed there were many on these forums with the same issue.

I am so glad you found you way out of this type of thinking. Yes, the thinking some denominations promote is indeed toxic so all is not perfect in Christianity and as I said I especially have issues with Catholicism to begin with for reasons such as this.

Anyway, I am glad you came to a situation where you are free from such thinking and I can see exactly why you self extricated from religion given your situation. I am happy you are at peace now and hopefully it is the type of peace that transcends all understanding.

Regards,

JJ

Thanks for your thoughtful reply JJ.

I know what you mean about catholicism but I do find it interesting how our different perspectives have led me to understand that religion was the language through which my OCD was expressed rather than the cause of it.

[Davin]

Smellyoldgit wrote

You're probably too dumb to use the search function ....

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15837

I'm sure that now that evidence has been presented that Looser66 will demonstrate even a small level of intelligence by admitting to being wrong....

however the dumbass has proven to be quite stupid, so most likely not.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Your wrong.

I'm sure I'm correct to say your 100% not open to the possibility that an invisible unicorn spaghetti monster is presently 10 cm in front of you doing the chicken dance - correct? This is true, unequivocal disbelief.

But by you're own words you are open to existence of a god or gods.

So your level of disbelief is greater (at 0% belief) for the unicorn spaghetti monster as compared to the possibility of a God (so > 0% belief) - so that's a "shred" (absolute bare minimal level) of belief. Biblically we like to say "mustard seed".

Capice?

So you're too stupid to realize there's no difference! Why don't you explain it to us?

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.

H.L. Mencken

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

I'll believe it when I see it.
I could look for old Muslim posts to see if the responses are relatively tame.

Hello retarda/troll - nice try at a red herring - DUH, DUH, DUH. Ever notice how few crtiticisms in Alabama MSM of Eskimo lifestyles? Gee, I wonder why the is? DUH.

A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill. Worse, he is incurable, for disappointment, being essentially an objective phenomenon, cannot permanently affect his subjective infirmity. His faith takes on the virulence of a chronic infection. What he usually says, in substance, is this: "Let us trust in God, who has always fooled us in the past.

HL Mencken

[JerryJohn]

Kinich Ahau wrote

We face the real consequences of the physical and mental risks, our conscience and legal ramifications just as you do. Even the religious realise these are the only things during our lifetime. Atheists don't have the imaginary add-ons in a hypothetical afterlife like the religious.

What I've never understood is, what is the difference between before and after Jesus supposedly died for our sins? What sacrifice did he make?

K,

Atheists and theists have this in common; we both face the real consequences of risks and legal ramifications of our actions. Theists believe repentance is necessary for forgiveness of sins and that all will answer for tour actions at the final judgement. Those unrepentant, and there are some, K, will also face judgement.

Judge has discussed (and others perhaps) mitigating factors for those committing such evil acts as rape, abuse of kids, even murder. I have read that many on death row for instance for committing horrific crimes have been abused both physically in such ways that meet the UN standards for torture; such as burned with cigarettes, punished in extreme ways physically etc, and as kids have themselves been sexually abused, some in horrific ways with threats of killing parents if you"tell" and all the tools of the trade molesters employ. There are so good at grooming kids, sadly.

God will take this into account.

However, theists believe there IS indeed final retribution by God. Not all that do what most would consider evil acts fit the categories above with mitigating factors.

Regarding your second question, I do believe I read your mention of animal sacrifice. I will look for it and give you the theist thought on the difference between before and after Jesus died for sins and what sacrifice he made. I think perhaps you know the answer from a theist point of view which of course I know you reject.

Regards,

JJ