You're not going to fall for this, are you?

[Kinich Ahau]

orangeitis wrote

Hell, I seem to be the only one even taking you serious now(besides Stargazer), because of your blatant unwillingness to carry on a mature discussion. Is that really what you want?

If it's a debate you're after E-bore's not your man, and definitely not Fakey.
In fact this may not be the place, it is extremely rare for a theist to engage in honest debate here. The best thing is to just poke fun at them while trying not to step in the shit they smear all over this place.

[psychodiva]

Egor wrote

I do. In my book I'm writing. I suppose you think I should just cut and paste those chapters in here, right?

fuck off- nobody would read the ungrammatical drivel anyway you moron

[psychodiva]

oh Orange- if you want debates you are in the wrong place- all we get here is drive-by theists and fools like ebore - which make for great chew toys but not real debates

[Irreligious]

orangeitis wrote

That's just an excuse. An excuse to avoid a real discussion. Tell me Egor, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread? You're just talking nonsense, and when we ask for a decent argument, you avoid the questions as hard as you can by claims that we aren't open-minded, when it is in fact you that isn't open-minded... otherwise, you wouldn't assert any claims about us, and discuss openly with us for the sake of argument. Hell, I seem to be the only one even taking you serious now(besides Stargazer), because of your blatant unwillingness to carry on a mature discussion. Is that really what you want?

Again, what are you even trying to accomplish?

In my experience, some theists come here to convert atheists to their brand of Christianity, specifically, or minimally, to a general acceptance that a god exists. Either outcome would probably be chalked up as a win by those promoting a faith-based belief system.

Failing that, they're here to vent their frustration with atheists, cajole them through preaching, obfuscate to evade tough questions, impugn the character of skeptics and pout over their failure to convert atheists to a belief in god.

[Stargazer]

Irreligious wrote

In my experience, some theists come here to convert atheists to their brand of Christianity, specifically, or minimally, to a general acceptance that a god exists. Either outcome would probably be chalked up as a win by those promoting a faith-based belief system.

They don't always use straightforward tactics either, since being able to trumpet a "win" regardless of how it was obtained, would no doubt be seen as a coup d'etat by other theists.

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...&postcount=100


Gotta watch for those traps.

[orangeitis]

No, let me give him the benefit of the doubt, everyone. I know it seems like I'm taking him seriously because I'm a newbie here, but I'm like this all the time. xD

I see it as a good exercise, at the very least.

[Stargazer]

orangeitis wrote

No, let me give him the benefit of the doubt, everyone. I know it seems like I'm taking him seriously because I'm a newbie here, but I'm like this all the time. xD

We're with you. Proceed.

[Brick]

[Irreligious]

Stargazer wrote

They don't always use straightforward tactics either, since being able to trumpet a "win" regardless of how it was obtained, would no doubt be seen as a coup d'etat by other theists.

With all due respect, they don't ever use straightforward tactics. A straightforward tactic would be for them to acknowledge right off the bat that they are promoting faith in claims that they don't know to be true, but they, none the less, believe with every fiber of their being will be revealed someday.

If they truly valued honesty, as it pertains to promoting their religions, they would say, in clear language, what they believe a god is. In all the time that I've been posting here, I can recall only one theist poster acknowledge that he was worshipping an ostensible person, a man, an invisible and magical man with unlimited powers of manipulation who created human beings in his physical image and who, as a result, favors humans over all other living beings in existence.

I don't recall the name of this particular theist poster, as his tenure here was very short-lived, but he is the only one I can recall who was willing to be open about what he worshipped. Of course, he would indulge no further questions about the attributes of the invisible, magical man he worshipped, such as whether or not he possessed a penis and testicles or if he was decidedly Caucasian in appearance even though, being invisible, this magical man cannot be seen by the human eye.

Otherwise, the vast majority of theists who post here don't really want us to question their beliefs. They're here to scold and to preach.

[Stargazer]

Irreligious wrote

With all due respect, they don't ever use straightforward tactics. A straightforward tactic would be for them to acknowledge right off the bat that they are promoting faith in claims that they don't know to be true, but they, none the less, believe with every fiber of their being will be revealed someday.

Acknowledged. I was just leaving the door slightly ajar in case one ever did.

Irr wrote

If they truly valued honesty, as it pertains to promoting their religions, they would say, in clear language, what they believe a god is.

Which you have asked for numerous times.

Irr wrote

In all the time that I've been posting here, I can recall only one theist poster acknowledge that he was worshipping an ostensible person, a man, an invisible and magical man with unlimited powers of manipulation who created human beings in his physical image and who, as a result, favors humans over all other living beings in existence.

I don't recall the name of this particular theist poster, as his tenure here was very short-lived, but he is the only one I can recall who was willing to be open about what he worshipped. Of course, he would indulge no further questions about the attributes of the invisible, magical man he worshipped, such as whether or not he possessed a penis and testicles or if he was decidedly Caucasian in appearance even though, being invisible, this magical man cannot be seen by the human eye.

Well, good for him/her. At least a partial description.

Irr wrote

Otherwise, the vast majority of theists who post here don't really want us to question their beliefs. They're here to scold and to preach.

You're right. But I still have hope that we'll see something more concrete one of these days.

[Egor]

Sol wrote

There you go, that's the little footsoldier for jesus...

Sol wrote

Now didn't that feel a just little cathartic hmm.

Ah, so you can make threats of grotesque physical violence, but you can’t even take the heat of being diss’d. I’d be appalled except I see physical cowards all the time. In the U.S. we’d call you a bitch. It’s why U.S. servicemen are always able to steal your women—even if only for a night when they’re TDY.

But as an atheist you should respect this, right? The better seed is essential for the evolution of the species. After all, we wouldn’t want your kind of cowardice to be passed on, now would we? Who would stand up to the lions and the bears and all that other natural selection stuff? You train dogs, right? Surely you know what I’m talking about.

So, just remember, if I’m ever in Scotland on a speaking gig or something, I like breakfast in bed: coffee in the morning (not tea) and one of those jelly-belly doughnuts. Oh, and uh, whatever she likes.

orangeitis wrote

No, let me give him the benefit of the doubt, everyone. I know it seems like I'm taking him seriously because I'm a newbie here, but I'm like this all the time. xD

orangeitis wrote

I see it as a good exercise, at the very least.

You know, I’ve done this before. There was an atheist who e-mailed with me and we had a serious intellectual debate with mutual respect about the existence of God. As we were going along, he just ducked out of the conversation and came back in here and started up with the same ol’ disrespect-shtick. It was a complete waste of my time.

But what the hell, this is what I’m here for. So here it goes:

Given the existence of the universe as we find it, the best explanation is to infer that a Supreme Being created it and sustains its existence.

Once we accept this, I believe we can speculate logically as to the character of this Being and derive the purpose of our lives and thus the best way to live our lives.

I define the Supreme Being as follows: God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Religiously, I’m a Veridican. A Veridican is a type of Christian who believes that God is monistic in His nature and that the human purpose is to become Christ; Christ being God conscious of Himself from within His creation.

I am willing to start a mature dialogue or debate on any of those topics.

[Brick]

Egor wrote

Religiously, I’m a Veridican. A Veridican is a type of Christian who believes that God is monistic in His nature and that the human purpose is to become Christ; Christ being God conscious of Himself from within His creation.

I am willing to start a mature dialogue or debate on any of those topics.

I'm a Frisbeetarian. Frisbeetarians believe that one someone dies, their soul tries to go to heaven but usually gets stuck on a roof somewhere.

May I ask why you choose to be a Christian instead of a Buddhist or a Muslim? Because I see no reason to favor one over another.

[ILOVEJESUS]

How is it the best explanation that the universe had a creator? It is the opposite. It is not very well designed really. Beautiful, amazing, powerful etc but there is no design evidence that you speak of. Pretty much makes the rest of your post a waste of wanking time.
I would call you a "pussy". That is UK talk for a twat who wishes he had a physical presence and glorifies other people enjoying sex, which he will never have. If you are ever in Scotland or the UK I will happily look you up for a, er, debate. I like lunch at 13.00 on the dot, and don't get that confused with brunch , or afternoon munchies.
What you think, is your own business, why bring it here? What validation are you going to get do you think, on an atheist site? Do you think we will believe you because you have abelief, and some "pussy" martial art fetish?

[Brick]

Egor wrote

But what the hell, this is what I’m here for. So here it goes:

Given the existence of the universe as we find it, the best explanation is to infer that a Supreme Being created it and sustains its existence.

But the Scientologists say something different! And they have many celebrity spokesmen and fleegle-garble-jibber-jabber-gobba-gobba-hey. You can't argue against that airtight logic!

I wonder why religious people never produce the simple evidence that would verify their claims. Why, it's almost as though the whole thing is a giant intellectual swindle dressed up in fancy verbiage and backed up by emotional blackmail and physical violence!

[orangeitis]

Egor wrote

Religiously, I’m a Veridican. A Veridican is a type of Christian who believes that God is monistic in His nature and that the human purpose is to become Christ; Christ being God conscious of Himself from within His creation.

Interesting. I never heard of that sect of Christianity. I'd guess that it's either not a large denomination, or it's relatively new. I shall research this...

Egor wrote

You know, I’ve done this before. There was an atheist who e-mailed with me and we had a serious intellectual debate with mutual respect about the existence of God. As we were going along, he just ducked out of the conversation and came back in here and started up with the same ol’ disrespect-shtick. It was a complete waste of my time.

Everyone's different. You shouldn't bunch all of one group, in this case atheists, together like that. That seems to be how stereotypes get started. And besides, you don't seem to know why he done that to you. Maybe he realized that he can't get through to you, and/or that you can't see his reasoning. A lot of people give up when they realize that. Don't take it too hard.

Egor wrote

Given the existence of the universe as we find it, the best explanation is to infer that a Supreme Being created it and sustains its existence.

But that's wrong. See, what you've produced just then is called a false dichotomy. Humanity has not yet actually found something that "created" the universe, but you immediately assert that it must have been a supreme being that done it. That's a logical fallacy, assumptions should never be used to get your point across in a debate.

Egor wrote

Once we accept this, I believe we can speculate logically as to the character of this Being and derive the purpose of our lives and thus the best way to live our lives.

Of course if you assert something, we can make speculations based on that assertion. But if there's no evidence for the assertion, let alone reason to assert it in the first place, why bother asserting it in the first place? We'd just be throwing around our fantasies if we just went along with random ideas like that.