Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Saturday, November 22, 2008

There probably Isn't

There is a new website that is collecting testimonials from atheists, about their realization that a god most likely doesn't exist. Mine is here. Add yours, and post it! Oh, yeah, and post the Raytractors link!
Posted by at
Labels:

38 comments:

  1. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM

    I am sorry clos but i wanted to pick out a couple pieces of misinformation in the linhk.

    [Does anyone notice that Jesus' story is all too similar to that of Horus, who predated him by about as much time as people have believed in Jesus?]
    Clos find a respected Egyptologist who endorses these similarities.Only ignoramuses like Acharya S and Bill Maher are propagating this myth.

    [However, I cannot call someone "good" or "moral" when they believe in and seem to take great pleasure contemplating the eternal torture of other people.]
    Where does Jesus take pleasure in torture?He warns us of being sent to Gehenna (the place of shame and punishment).

    [Further, why did Jesus need to have us kill him?]
    Because there needs to be blood sacrifice for the remission of sins

    [People claim so he could save us. The question that needs to be asked is, "from himself?".]
    No- from punishment

    [How does the blood sacrifice of an innocent for the crimes of the guilty make anything right? This is scapegoating writ large.]
    Why is atonement wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ClostridiophileNovember 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM

    "Clos find a respected Egyptologist who endorses these similarities.Only ignoramuses like Acharya S and Bill Maher are propagating this myth."

    Respected by whom?? Christians? Horus isn't the only god predating Christianity with such similarity. Early church fathers like Justin Martyr state very plainly that these similarities can be explained by the "fact" that Satan had foreknowledge of Jesus' life and propogated the myths hundreds of years before his birth. Your own church fathers admit this.

    "Where does Jesus take pleasure in torture?He warns us of being sent to Gehenna (the place of shame and punishment)."

    He speaks quite a bit about "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and about gathering twigs and throwing them in the fire. The fact that he believes in eternal suffering suggests he is immoral. Would you torture your children for an infinite amount of time? Jesus claims he will.

    "Because there needs to be blood sacrifice for the remission of sins."

    Why?

    "No- from punishment"

    Who do you think is claimed to be doing the punishment??? Fucking Jesus, thats who. My statement stands. He has us torture him to save us from himself....coo coo.

    "Why is atonement wrong?"

    First, that something can be made right through murder is absurd. Second, it is not his place to forgive a rapist for crimes they commit against their victim. It is the victim's right. Not to mention that many of "His" representatives are the offending party makes the whole enterprise exude a truly diabolical aura. Torturing an innocent (Jesus) for the crimes of the guilty (us) is immoral. It is immoral for him to offer, and immoral of us to accept...but we are told we MUST accept.

    Further, the whole thing is predicated on another immoral principle: placing the crimes of the father on the child. Original sin...the major reason for the crucifixion (which doesn't make sense).

    So now we have two immoral doctrines, vicarious atonement and punishing children for their great grandaddy's offenses. Pure bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM

    [Respected by whom?? Christians? ]
    Anyone who has some sort of credentials in the field. Shows like Zeitgeist and God who wasn't there propagate these myths that aren't supported by experts.The don't stand up to any scrutiny.

    [Horus isn't the only god predating Christianity with such similarity.]
    Who? There is no evidence for this.

    [Early church fathers like Justin Martyr state very plainly that these similarities can be explained by the "fact" that Satan had foreknowledge of Jesus' life and propogated the myths hundreds of years before his birth.]
    I've read Justin Martyr. He argued that the devil imitated the messianic prophecies of the Old testament in the forms of other religions. I think that you( or Flemming who promotes this view) are misquoting him.
    Read this
    http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm


    [He speaks quite a bit about "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and about gathering twigs and throwing them in the fire. The fact that he believes in eternal suffering suggests he is immoral. Would you torture your children for an infinite amount of time? Jesus claims he will.]
    Weeping and gnashing and fire are used as common metaphors for shame and harsh judgment respectively.


    [Why? ]
    Because God is a just god who will not trivialise sin and its consequences.

    Clos, Do you believe that there is an objective standard on justice and morality and it applies to God? If so explain .
    You and I could go on and say - atonement is immoral and unjust. I could sya that it is moral and just and it would just be meaningless opinion unless one of us could appeal to an objective standard of justice and morality.

    [Further, the whole thing is predicated on another immoral principle: placing the crimes of the father on the child. Original sin...the major reason for the crucifixion (which doesn't make sense).]
    I don't know what the Catholic church taught you about original sin. But original sin is about how Adam's sin and punshment set a legal precedent for our own.

    http://www.tektonics.org/lp/origsin.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anna SetheNovember 22, 2008 at 3:28 PM

    mft,
    you asked for someone credible who endorses the similarities between Horus and Jesus? this is unfortunately a German site, but it's funnily enough written by an Evangelical...
    You have to scroll down to:
    "4. Der historische Hintergrund des Marienkults". There you can find:
    Maria=Isis=Astarte and Jesus=Horus

    I could try to find somebody more credible if you don't believe your fellow Christians...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anna SetheNovember 22, 2008 at 3:44 PM

    btw,
    Ray has posted his "conversation" with Patrick. Horrible sound, but his style of discussion is even worse. I couldn't even stand five minutes of it. And so far Patrick was clearly leading, imho.

    Just out of curiosity, guys: I sometimes have the impression that high voices in men are correlated with low testosterone levels, can that be true?
    I somehow doubt Ray would be able to produce more kids...

    ReplyDelete
  6. ClostridiophileNovember 22, 2008 at 4:03 PM

    "I've read Justin Martyr. He argued that the devil imitated the messianic prophecies of the Old testament in the forms of other religions. I think that you( or Flemming who promotes this view) are misquoting him."

    MFT,

    Oh, so I'm taking him out of context when he wrote:

    "When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced w/out sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again and ascended into heaven we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding the sons of Jupiter"

    and,

    "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus."

    oh, let us not forget:

    "The devils craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter not by sexual union."

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxix.html

    Yeah, I misquote.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ClostridiophileNovember 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM

    "Clos, Do you believe that there is an objective standard on justice and morality and it applies to God? If so explain .
    You and I could go on and say - atonement is immoral and unjust. I could sya that it is moral and just and it would just be meaningless opinion unless one of us could appeal to an objective standard of justice and morality."

    So the question is whether objective morals exist outside of god's fiat or these morals are based on god's fiat. If the former, then it doesn't matter what god thinks. If the latter, then he may just willy nilly tell you that to be moral you must eat babies heads with a spork. The additional problem for you is that if this god is made up by humans-which is almost certainly the case-then the "objective morals" you speak of are really just more human opinions. This seems probable as the Bible has no problem with rape and slavery, and despite commandments against murder, is full of genocide and commandments to murder. Stupid pronouncements such as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" really opens the floodgates as to how we define "witch"....we all know how that one turned out. If you want to show that there are objective moral standards, you need to demonstrate that this law giver exists.

    I will admit that while we may not have an objective moral standard...all of us that is, not just atheists...can we not agree that stopping a blind man from stepping in front of a bus is a moral action...and raping a 6 year old is immoral? Can we not say that love is more condusive to happiness than hate and violence? If so, what does this tell us? Perhaps that morality is based on human and animal suffering and happiness? This is why I have moral obligations to my computer screen...but I do have moral obligations to my dog and to my neighbor because while the latter examples have the capacity for happiness and suffering.

    I don't need a cosmic cop, I don't need a book, I need to only ask would the action I am about to perform hurt me if someone else were to do this? That is morality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PvblivsNovember 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM

    Mrfreethinker:

         What do you actually mean when you say that your god is just? Many christians claim that what is just is determined by their god's decree. For them, calling their god just is nothing more than saying he does what he feels like. Is this the same meaning you apply? Hmm... I did a blog post some time ago on the concept of objective morality. It may be worth a repost.
         Why does need there need to be a blood sacrifice to "atone for sin"? The concept of "sin" seems to be made up with the express purpose of claiming that everyone requires a savior. I think that there is an objective morality (although our knowledge of it is imperfect.) I further believe that any construct designed to make everyone a "sinner" is, itself, objectively immoral. Your god is not good. He is wicked. He does not deserve worship. He deserves scorn. I did a more recent post on "suppose you were travelling to another realm." See if you can identify which land corresponds to your god.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Benjamin FranklinNovember 22, 2008 at 4:25 PM

    MFT said-

    "Because there needs to be blood sacrifice for the remission of sins"

    That might have played centuries, or millenia in the past, but today, it is pure bullshit.

    One more reason why religion ought to catch up with the modern world.

    Next thing you know, you'll be saying that when incanted with some magic words, a cracker actually does become the physical flesh and body of Christ.

    Good grief!

    ReplyDelete
  10. MaragonNovember 22, 2008 at 5:20 PM

    MrFreeThinker, I said this to you before, and you ignored it.
    I think it bears repeating here.

    For thousands of years the greatest minds that humanity has had to offer have pondered the great questions of life - the purpose of our existence, the existence of a deity, the nature of consciousness, the validity of the human mind, the nature of the universe itself - and they have come to no consensus.

    But you, you've decided that you know, for certain, that you have the answers to these questions - because you read some stuff on the internet.
    You're not even old enough to legally drink. Get over yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 7:04 PM

    @tilia
    I was looking for something more along the lines of stuff like citation from credentialed Egyptologists or archeological finds.
    Btw Patrick should have debated someone like scmike. He would have massacred his silly postmodern butt.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 7:12 PM

    [Yeah, I misquote.]
    Yes you do
    Check the link before. Justin Martyr was trying to talk to the Romans who viewed Christianity as a foreign philsophy and trying to persuade them that it was not very different.
    Read the link above.

    [I will admit that while we may not have an objective moral standard..]
    Ok, do you realise this renders your criticism meaningless right?When you call the bible immoral you just appeal to someone's opinion.I'm glad you at least realised that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chris MackeyNovember 22, 2008 at 7:23 PM

    Yeah, if someone does something wrong, someone must be tortured! It doesn't seem to matter who... Blood must be spilled! Yay, YHWH! Jesus is original!
    ----
    blarg! Good thing this YHWH guy doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  14. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 7:47 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 7:49 PM

    [That might have played centuries, or millenia in the past, but today, it is pure bullshit.]
    Why?


    [Next thing you know, you'll be saying that when incanted with some magic words, a cracker actually does become the physical flesh and body of Christ.]
    God forbid!! Magic! Transubstantiation!!
    Heresy

    ReplyDelete
  16. Benjamin FranklinNovember 22, 2008 at 7:49 PM

    MFT

    The nice thing about citing God or the bible as an authority is that you can prove anything you set out to prove. It's just a matter of selecting the proper postulates, then insisting that your postulates are 'inspired'.

    Then no one can possibly prove that you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 7:50 PM

    @Pvbvlis
    Where do you think objective morals come from?

    ReplyDelete
  18. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 7:50 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 7:52 PM

    @Maragon,
    I was just pointing out errors in Clos' post.

    ReplyDelete
  20. PvblivsNovember 22, 2008 at 8:00 PM

    Mrfreethinker:

         I addressed my thoughts on objective morality here. Of course, as that post is nearly a year old, I don't check it much for feedback anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ClostridiophileNovember 22, 2008 at 8:43 PM

    "[Yeah, I misquote.]
    Yes you do
    Check the link before. Justin Martyr was trying to talk to the Romans who viewed Christianity as a foreign philsophy and trying to persuade them that it was not very different.
    Read the link above."

    Read the link I provided, this was the actual source...the link you provided was written by who knows, making claims without references. Follow the url I posted.

    "[I will admit that while we may not have an objective moral standard..]
    Ok, do you realise this renders your criticism meaningless right?When you call the bible immoral you just appeal to someone's opinion.I'm glad you at least realised that."

    No, my criticism is not meaningless. Did you fucking read the rest of what I said?? I notice you didn't answer my questions, or address the fact that you are correct IF AND ONLY IF jebus exists. Also, I don't think that pointing out that rape is morally wrong, that genocide is morally wrong is just "someone's opinion". Jesus Christ, do I have to repeat everything I say to you?? What is it that you god damn Christians don't understand about morality? Why is it so difficult? Just don't fucking hurt people because you wouldn't want to be hurt. Help people who need help...they might return the favor, and this is what we bank on as a civil society. Do you really need a bronze age book and its "authority"?

    Question for you, MFT, if you had definite knowledge that a god did not exist, how would you behave? Would you rape, steal, and murder with abandon?

    Also, I'll provide Christopher Hitchens' challenge: Name a moral action that a believer could perform that a non-believer could not.

    By "moral action" I mean something like giving blood, giving money to the poor, etc.

    P.S. You haven't "pointed out errors" in my post. You have only tried to poo poo away things that are inconvenient to your position.

    In fact, you are the one claiming absolute morals exist...so the burden is on you to prove this by showing that god exists. the burden of proof can be a real biatch, ma fucka!

    ReplyDelete
  22. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 8:45 PM

    @Pbvlis
    I think you don't explain why we need to obey these laws.
    For example, if we were playing scrabble and you drew out your letters. You arranged them and they spelled "GO TO DALLAS". Would you have to obey this command? I see no reason why anyone should obey this command
    But suppose you boss told you the same thing. You would recognize that you ought to obey this command because it has an authority behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ClostridiophileNovember 22, 2008 at 8:50 PM

    MFT,

    Your response to pvblivs demonstrates that you need an authority over you to behave well. You keep asking why should you do X? Well, if you didn't have an authority watching...would you do the things that were prohibited by the authority simply because it was removed?

    ReplyDelete
  24. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 9:00 PM

    @Clos
    The guy commenting on the quote gives the background of Justin Martyr. I've read the first apology.
    And I hope you realize that those claims about Horus were wrong.

    And you totally missed the point about the morality thing. Let's say I liked chocolate ice-cream and you liked vanilla ice-cream. You wanted to debate me on which ice-cream is better. However you insisted that there is no objective standard to tell which ice-cream is the best. It would be pointless to debate wouldn't it? Obviously I will hold to my opinion and you yours.
    In the same way it is impossible for me and you to debate the morality of the atonement,....etc if there is no standard to judge. Because obviously you will hold to your opinion and I will to mine. The debate is pointless if there is no objective standard.

    I wasn't claiming people would do immoral things without god or that believers were more moral.

    ReplyDelete
  25. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 9:19 PM

    @Clos


    [Your response to pvblivs demonstrates that you need an authority over you to behave well. You keep asking why should you do X?]
    It's not just me. It is why Marquis de Sade and Jeffrey Dahmer had to do X and why they were wrong when they didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  26. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 9:21 PM

    [ Well, if you didn't have an authority watching...would you do the things that were prohibited by the authority simply because it was removed?]
    I wouldn't be honest if I said yes. Stuff like not paying tithes , not confessing sins, lust that are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ClostridiophileNovember 22, 2008 at 9:48 PM

    "And you totally missed the point about the morality thing. Let's say I liked chocolate ice-cream and you liked vanilla ice-cream. You wanted to debate me on which ice-cream is better. However you insisted that there is no objective standard to tell which ice-cream is the best. It would be pointless to debate wouldn't it? Obviously I will hold to my opinion and you yours."

    What if we replace "chocolate ice cream" with "rape is ok" and "vanilla ice cream" with "rape is not ok". Would it just come down to our silly opinion? Ice cream flavor preference and moral issues like rape and murder can hardly be compared, because it doesn't really matter what flavor ice cream you like, does it? But it does matter whether you like to rape children or not.

    My point about the authority issue is that if you really need one, you show yourself to be an immoral person. That is why we need people policing our societies to remove the psychos that don't have compassion or a sense of responsibility for others. Is it not objective to say that love and compassion are more conducive to human and animal well being than hate and violence? Do we need some external authority to tell us this?

    The difference between our views is this: I can recognize that murdering a child is wrong because the child will suffer terribly, their family will suffer, and I will suffer knowing this. This is enough for me to recognize that I would never, ever want to do this. However, while you no doubt feel this way as well, what if your God told you that he changed his mind and it is now moral for you to murder children. In fact, those who murder and torture the most children will have a special place. What then of your "authority"? Morality doesn't come from authority, it comes from common experience and empathy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Benjamin FranklinNovember 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM

    I agree with Clos.

    As did Einstein when he said:

    "The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."

    and

    "A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

    ReplyDelete
  29. MrFreeThinkerNovember 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM

    Anyway

    [What if we replace "chocolate ice cream" with "rape is ok" and "vanilla ice cream" with "rape is not ok". Would it just come down to our silly opinion?]
    If there is no standard then yes.

    [But it does matter whether you like to rape children or not. ]
    Which is why we need an objective standard not affected by opinion or majority.

    [My point about the authority issue is that if you really need one, you show yourself to be an immoral person.]
    If there is no objective standard of morality, there is no objective meaning to terms like immoral and moral.if you and I can come up with our own morality , why cant Jeffrey Dahmer?

    [Is it not objective to say that love and compassion are more conducive to human and animal well being than hate and violence?]
    But you see the thing is Clos, not all people value well-being like you or I do.
    Hitler didn't really care about your well-being if you weren't a member of the master race.Jeffrey Dahmer just cared about himself.
    You see the thing is regardless of my opinions about human well-being , I can go tell Hitler that there is something objectively important about this and there is something objectively wrong with murdering 6 million Jews.
    [it comes from common experience and empathy.]
    I'm sure Hitler and Dahmer felt those feelings too. I guess they disobeyed them. Why was it wrong for they to disobey them?

    ReplyDelete
  30. MaragonNovember 23, 2008 at 10:21 AM

    "Hitler didn't really care about your well-being if you weren't a member of the master race.Jeffrey Dahmer just cared about himself.
    You see the thing is regardless of my opinions about human well-being , I can go tell Hitler that there is something objectively important about this and there is something objectively wrong with murdering 6 million Jews."

    And why should Hitler(lawl you fail again - Godwin'd) or Dahmer care about your opinion that morality is objective?

    ReplyDelete
  31. ClostridiophileNovember 23, 2008 at 10:30 AM

    @MFT,

    [What if we replace "chocolate ice cream" with "rape is ok" and "vanilla ice cream" with "rape is not ok". Would it just come down to our silly opinion?]
    If there is no standard then yes.

    So our standard shouldn't be the capacity for human suffering? We can't recognize that we wouldn't want to be raped, and that we wouldn't want our sons or daughters raped? This isn't enough to enact....oh, I don't know, say laws against such thing? There are many biological reasons why rape should be prevented: emotional scarring, threat of violence, passage of disease, etc. Your holy book doesn't seem to have a problem with rape. There are many instances I could cite.

    [But it does matter whether you like to rape children or not. ]
    Which is why we need an objective standard not affected by opinion or majority.

    Yeah, but I keep telling you that you don't have one. You have a book that claims authority...but again, pal, you can make a case for rape in the Bible. You can make a case for slavery, you can make a case for murder. If you use any standard, it is sympathy and empathy for your fellow person. Resolving such moral questions doesn't require us to read a book.

    [My point about the authority issue is that if you really need one, you show yourself to be an immoral person.]
    If there is no objective standard of morality, there is no objective meaning to terms like immoral and moral.if you and I can come up with our own morality , why cant Jeffrey Dahmer?

    These terms do make sense relative to human suffering. We can say in terms of human suffering that torture is immoral because it causes pain. Rape is wrong, by definition, because it is forced and unwanted. There is something wrong mentally with Jeffrey Dahmer. For a social species to evolve, the only way for it to survive is for its members to cohere and act in ways that are mutually beneficial to interacting members. Reciprocity is necessary for our survival. That is why we, and indeed other social mammals reward behavior that increases survival and punish behavior that decreases it. Our species, evolved as we are, have set up a system to deal with those who do not manage to behave well with others. We do this not because we want to please a deity...we do it so we will feel safe to walk around, and raise a family. Isn't this reason enough? Do you really need a book, and an imaginary authority that you simultaneously must love AND fear?

    [Is it not objective to say that love and compassion are more conducive to human and animal well being than hate and violence?]
    But you see the thing is Clos, not all people value well-being like you or I do.

    Yeah, and that is why we as a society punish them. We recognize that they cause unfairness or pain and suffering, and we don't want their actions to affect us or our loved ones. This is morality.

    Hitler didn't really care about your well-being if you weren't a member of the master race.Jeffrey Dahmer just cared about himself.

    And we can say that Hitler was wrong in moral terms, because none of us would want to be treated like the Jews and others that Hitler had tortured and killed. Understand?

    You see the thing is regardless of my opinions about human well-being , I can go tell Hitler that there is something objectively important about this and there is something objectively wrong with murdering 6 million Jews.

    What if your authority figure told you that killing Jews is good fun? Would you change the feeling you have inside as you shoved Jewish children into gas chambers at the request of your authority? What about when you are told by your authority to shoot the children in the face? As long as you are told this action is moral, you should have no more difficulty doing this than shooting a milk jug point blank.

    [it comes from common experience and empathy.]
    I'm sure Hitler and Dahmer felt those feelings too. I guess they disobeyed them. Why was it wrong for they to disobey them?

    I don't pretend to know what they think. I am no psychologist. Read what I wrote, and answer your own question. Maybe you will learn morality yet.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ClostridiophileNovember 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM

    @Ben Franklin

    "I agree with Clos.

    As did Einstein when he said:

    "The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."

    and

    "A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.""

    Yet another set of Einstein quotes that religious people will ignore as they shout, "Einstein believed in God"!! As Comfort et al always do.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ClostridiophileNovember 23, 2008 at 2:34 PM

    I just recently said this: "Yet another set of Einstein quotes that religious people will ignore as they shout, "Einstein believed in God"!! As Comfort et al always do."

    Then I thought to myself, I haven't written about Ray in awhile...I haven't even looked at his stupid website in awhile. Sure enough, I read the first couple posts, and this was written:

    "I marvel at the genius of God. Einstein did."

    In a hundred years, do you think Christians will claim that Dawkins believed in god too?

    ReplyDelete
  34. AnonymousNovember 23, 2008 at 2:49 PM

    Btw Patrick should have debated someone like scmike. He would have massacred his silly postmodern butt.

    Riiiiiight! Debating a dishonest postulator of fallacies over fallacies would massacre somebodie's butt. Riiiiight! :-D

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  35. AnonymousNovember 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM

    In a hundred years, do you think Christians will claim that Dawkins believed in god too?

    Sure they will.

    ReplyDelete
  36. MrFreeThinkerNovember 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM

    [Riiiiiight! Debating a dishonest postulator of fallacies over fallacies would massacre somebodie's butt. Riiiiight! :-D]
    But the guy said he didn't believe logic was absolute..

    [Sure they will.]
    You don't have to wait
    http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/10/another-anthony-flew.html

    ReplyDelete
  37. AnonymousNovember 23, 2008 at 4:22 PM

    But the guy said he didn't believe logic was absolute..

    The problem MFT, is not whether logic is absolute or not, but that SC Mikei only seems to kick butt to you because he has mastered the trickery to eternally go on in circles. So, your perception is that he has answers for everything. Yet, he does not, look a bit more closely, and you will see he answers nothing.

    For instance, whenever he pleases things are extreme (black and white). But, call him on something, and he will use grays. How can you argue reasonably with such a Humpty Dumpty? And that is just one of his many tricks. All tricks in the end.

    Actually, the problem is that everybody starts arguing with him unaware to begin with, that he is starting with loaded/charged questions (equivalent to "have you stopped hitting your wife?"). Those are fallacies, and should not even be considered.

    Anyway, I know why you said that, but SC Mikei's arguments are not worth a penny.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  38. AnonymousNovember 23, 2008 at 4:23 PM

    MFT,

    Thanks for the link to Ray's postulating that Richard might believe in a god. I had forgotten that one.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)