an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

A Quick Question for the Presubullshitters

Right, you lot claim that there’s no such thing as an atheist, as you keep on telling us that Romans 1:18-20 claims that we’re just denying the existence of your god in ‘unrighteousness’. But what’s this? “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalms 14:1) – a verse various Sye-lons (including the main Sye-lon himself) have trotted out over and over again….but doesn’t that kind of contradict the Romans verse? Surely Psalms is very clear that some people DON’T believe in your god (and those people are fools, apparently)?

So which is it? Do we believe in your god, or are we ‘fools’ who don’t?

Single Post Navigation

98 thoughts on “A Quick Question for the Presubullshitters

  1. Hi Alex,Along these same lines, I would like to point out something that was written over on Choosing Hats in a blog entry called, "Dustin Segers and Sye Ten Bruggencate on the Fundamentally Flawed Podcast" by defectivebit on October 17, 2011.(http://www.choosinghats.com/2011/10/dustin-segers-and-sye-ten-bruggencate-on-the-fundamentally-flawed-podcast/)The post, in part reads: "Dustin does a great job laying the debate out on the table in the first 20 minutes, but not only that, he leaves the hosts of Fundamentally Flawed without an excuse. Enjoy."Perhaps it's just a slight oversight on the part of whoever it is that wrote this, but I find charging you "without an excuse" quite curious. It seems quite anti-biblical, heretical even, and not at all in accordance with what apologists tell us all the time about us being without excuse. Aren't people, allegedly, already "without excuse" even without such apologists making a so-called "case" for their god? It seems the writer of this blog is strongly implying that you *did* have an excuse prior to Segers showing up on your podcast; but that after Segers shows up, you *don't* have an excuse? Again, isn't everyone without excuse anyway, according to apologists?Ydemoc

  2. Indeed, either we were already 'without excuse', or we were only 'without excuse' once Dustin and Sye had puked out their nonsense for 2 hours….

  3. As to the original question, I'm guessing that their answer will be "Both".

  4. Alex,How is it that your'e not delusional?

  5. Trinity (Hezekiah) wrote to Alex: "How is it that your'e not delusional?"How is that you are delusional, Trinity? Is it because you are suppressing your knowledge of the supernatural being only imaginary?Ydemoc

  6. Ydemoc,How is that you're not a stalker?

  7. Trinity wrote: "How is that you're not a stalker?"I started posting here weeks ago. I didn't see your name around. Now I see your name around, and I respond to what you've written. And you consider that stalking!?! It's all starting to make sense now: No wonder you're a believer in the imaginary, you have such a low standard for the claims (imaginary) you make.Ydemoc

  8. Ydemoc?How long have you been a stalker?

  9. Trinity wrote: "How long have you been a stalker?"Your question reveals a flaw in your thinking that we've seen many, many times before. It assumes that which has been pointed out to you is not the case. But I'll say this for you: You certainly are living up to my labeling you: "Trinity: The Three Persons of the Knucklehead."Ydemoc

  10. //"So which is it? Do we believe in your god, or are we 'fools' who don't?"//Erm, you are fools who "say in your heart" that you don't, when you really do.It's not rocket science Alex.

  11. Ydemoc,Really, I am suppose to take it on your say so?Remeber wishing doesn't make it so.So, how is it that your not delusional and not a stalker?How about an argument for once.

  12. Alex,Might I suggest that the fool can say there is no God, while suppressing the truth of God's existence in unrighteousness.Furthermore, belief in the sense of notitia (or knowledge) is quite different than fiducia (trust). One can know that God exists (believe), without having a saving trust (believe) in Him. The fool saying that there is no God believes in a 'notitiary' way that He exists, but refuses to believe on Him in a 'fiduciary' way.It is most certainly possible to know of God's existence, and yet suppress this knowledge in unrighteousness… being morally culpable and responsible for such suppression given the evidence of His existence. Likewise, one who suppresses this knowledge of God in unrighteousness, can (and often does) say "there is no God" while knowing full well He does exist.So, to answer the questions, No… this isn't a contradiction; No… this Psalm does not say that some people do not believe in God's existence; Yes… all believe in God (notitia), but not all trust in God (fiducia)… and lastly, it says that fools SAY they do not believe (not 'fools do not believe').Thanks,Tim

  13. I told you he'd choose both! Bwahahahahhahah

  14. Baristaman,How is that you're not delusional?

  15. Hez, I don't know. You tell me. How do I know that you aren't a troll?

  16. Trinity wrote: "Really, I am suppose to take it on your say so?"Take what on my say so? That you're delusional? No, I would never say that you should take the fact that you're delusional on my "say so." Trinity wrote: "Remeber wishing doesn't make it so."Of course. But this is counter to what you've said over on Dawson's blog. Observe: "So, what if Christiany is "metaphysically subjective. Really who cares?" (December 04, 2011 6:32 PM) "Everybody that God killed or ordered to be killed brought it upon themselves and those that they represented. Case closed." (December 01, 2011 8:55 PM)"What part of God is the ultimate "cause" of everything and yet men are responsible for what they do don't you get?""Yea, BB, God controls everything that happens. That's classic reformed doctrine. It's clearly stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's actually one of my favorite biblical teachings." (December 02, 2011 4:54 PM)"Wishing does make it so. God does whatever he pleases. Call it what you want there's nothing you can do about it." (December 03, 2011 7:04 PM)Trinity wrote: "So, how is it that your not delusional and not a stalker?"How is that you *are* delusional? Is it because you are suppressing your knowledge of the supernatural being only imaginary?As far as your allegation of stalking, see above.Trinity wrote: "How about an argument for once."Here's an argument:"1) Existence exists. (We perceive existence directly, via our senses.)2) To exist is to be something specific. {from 1)}3) To be something specific is to have identity. {A is A; from 2)}4) The identity of an entity is not distinct from that entity; an entity and itsidentity are one and the same. {from 3)}5) Consciousness is consciousness of an object (i.e., of existence).5a) Therefore, consciousness presupposes existence. {from 5)}5b) Corollary: Existence does not depend on consciousness. {from 1)}6) The task of consciousness is not to create existence, but to identify it. {from 5)}7) Theism posits consciousness prior to and/or as causally responsible for thefact of existence (e.g., "God"). {theistic claims}8) Theism is in contradiction with fundamental facts of reality. {from 6)}C: Therefore, theism is invalid.Premises 1) though 3) are implicit in all perception, but made explicit in objective philosophy through axiomatic concepts. These truths are inescapable and presumed in all cognition.Premises 4) through 6) logically follow from the Objectivist axioms.Premises 7) and 8) are only necessary once the notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness is posited by the mystic.One does not "presuppose" anything about the "Christian triune God" – either that God exists or that God does not exist – when he recognizes the fact that existence exists, even when that recognition is completely implicit. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept (for such an assertion would fail to recognize objective conceptual priority and the hierarchical nature of knowledge)." (Source: Anton Thorn, "Considering Mr. Smallwood's Apologetic"(www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/Morgue/Smallwood.htm). Until next time,Ydemoc

  17. Baristaman,How is it that you don't know?You asked: "How do I know that you aren't a troll or a stalker?"By knowing.

  18. Ydemoc,Were not "arguing" about God's existence.But "arguing" about how is it that you're not delusional and not a stalker? Try again.

  19. Hez, blow me. 😀 Better yet, blow Sye, I'm sure he won't mind.

  20. Trinity wrote: "Were not "arguing" about God's existence. But "arguing" about how is it that you're not delusional and not a stalker?"One particular way I know I'm not delusional is because I recognize that all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, all-creating non-imaginary beings are actually imaginary.You see, I do not suppress my knowledge that imaginary is, in fact, imaginary.Your claims to the contrary do not rise to the level of knowledge. They are arbitrary.YdemocYdemoc

  21. Ydemoc,Ok. Merry Christmas But notice "Baristamans" reply. Can one be any more irrational?That's typical of "atheists" when their backs are against the wall they resort to personal attacks. Is this how you talk in front of you're family?How embarrassing. Thank God these aren't my problems.Love in Christ,HA

  22. Trinity, you're trollin' up a storm here! Do you have any VALID points you want to make? Or do you want to continue along your current path of nonsense and (apparently) English as a fourth language?

  23. Alex,My English is not the point in question here.But how is it that you're not delusional?By the way is it rational to tell someone to "blow me"?

  24. Hez,No, I'm not saying that, "as an atheist". I'm saying that as a human who thinks that you're a pathetic moron. And yes, I speak to my family that way when they deserve it. I'm honest. It wasn't a "personal attack", it was a request. BIG difference. But then again we know how bad you presubbers are when it comes to properly interpreting the written word.And I can't help but notice that you found it easier to defend your honor than your position vis-a-vis Ydemoc's statement. Wah. 😦

  25. Bman,My position defends itself. God doesn't need any help.So instead of spitting out obscenities and denigrations. Why don't you tell us How is it that you're not delusional?Is it rational to tell someone to "blow me"?Aren't you embarrassed?

  26. bman what is it about being irrational that you enjoy?

  27. Trinity, I'll ask you again, do you have any ACTUAL points?

  28. Alex,It's not quantum mechanics.When you tell me that your not delusional. I don't have any other alternative but to imagine it. So, how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?

  29. If you want to know what being delusional feels like simply pause for a few minutes and ponder your belief in your god.

  30. Just spotted this from Sye-lon -"Erm, you are fools who "say in your heart" that you don't, when you really do."AHAHAHAHAHAH! Fucking TWAT!

  31. Alex,Honestly, do you think evading questions, spitting out obscenities and denigrations, is going to fix the problem?I bet my life that I'll get more out of a monkey.It's embarrassing. By the way how it is that you're not delusional?

  32. "By the way how it is that you're not delusional?"Trinity, I'm not holding a belief to be delusional about.

  33. As for denigrating Syecho, do you belief he deserves better? If so, why? Please show your reasoning.

  34. Oh, one last thing, do you, Trinity, deny the Primacy of Existence?

  35. Hez, I'm not here and you're not reading this post. It's just a delusion.

  36. Alex,So, in other words you don't have any beliefs and you're simply being arbitraty for the sake it. Amazing.Ok, Alex, good point besides that, Sye, asked a few questions that you didn't like what, specifically, has he done that you feel the need to denigrate him?Yea, Alex, I affirm the primacy of existence. Rembember God is existence. In other words existence presupposes the Christian God. So, do you still affirm the primacy of existence?bman,How is it a delusion?Rembember like Dawson says the imaginary is not real.

  37. My history of dealing with douchebag Ten Bruggencate is common knowledge, Trinity. Why would I NOT affirm the Primacy of Existence? It's absolutely the way things are! But I don't know how you build your god into that, as (if things are 'real' and as they appear to be) we can very easily gain knowledge without calling on some transcendent super being. In fact, as the Primacy of Existence gives us a base line to work from when it comes to gaining knowledge, your presubullshit is COMPLETELY undermined!

  38. "By the way how it is that you're not delusional?"hahahahHez's version of Sye's "How do you know that?" Presubbers are so funny.

  39. Hezekiah Ahaz/TrinityYou're either missing the point or being deliberately contrary.What Alex is saying is that because existence must come before conciousness & if one is concious one can therefore know completely that one exists.If one can completely know any single thing then a transcendental source of knowledge is not necessary. Which means that a presupposition of gods existence is not required to account for knowledge.

  40. Bingo. Felix understands

  41. bman,The only thing that's funny is your irrationality.Alex,Said: "Why would I NOT affirm the Primacy of Existence? It's absolutely the way things are!"Alex, wishing doesn't make it so. Am I really suppose to take things on your say so?alex said: "we can very easily gain knowledge without calling on some transcendent super being" Remember metaphysical claims based on personal experience are subjective and arbitrary. So, why should I accept your view of reality?By the way Is this based on personal experience?Alex said: "In fact, as the Primacy of Existence gives us a base line to work from when it comes to gaining knowledge, your presubullshit is COMPLETELY undermined! Only in your dreams. By the way why is nature uniform?Hello Felix,Remember metaphysical claims based on personal experience are subjective and arbitrary. So, why should I accept your view of reality?

  42. Hezekiah Ahaz:Remember metaphysical claims based on personal experience are subjective and arbitrary. So, why should I accept your view of reality?Why should we accept yours then, whenever you characters claim that it's through "divine revelation" that you can trust your senses, etc?

  43. Trinity wrote: "So, why should I accept your view of reality?"Who is claiming that you should? By the way, why are you arguing against that which your allegedly non-imaginary being has planned? Ydemoc

  44. Reynold,My view of reality is based on the revalation of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it's not subjective or abitrary. Reynold, It's not why you should accept it but why you have to.God commands every man to repent-Acts 17All reasoning is based on faith. Remember God is faith. See the "proof"?I take my senses for granted. Remember taking things for granted assumes faith.By the way do you trust your senses by your senses?

  45. Alex, It's like reading a transcript for an ep of FF. 😀

  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

  47. Ydemoc,Because my non-imaginary God commands me to.Farewell. Have a Merry Christmas

  48. bman,how is it that your'e not irrational?

  49. Trinity wrote: "So, why should I accept your view of reality?"Who is claiming that you should? By the way, why are you arguing against that which your allegedly non-imaginary being has planned?Trinity wrote: "I take my senses for granted. Remember taking things for granted assumes faith."Stolen concepts. You using concepts while denying the genetic root that makes possible the concepts you're using By doing so, you are making a "Performative Confession as to the Validation of the Senses" just by typing what typed, just by assuming you know and we know what is meant by what you typed; yet you are attempting to deny that the senses are necessary and sufficient for the knowledge you display, by positing something beyond what would have to be in place before you could even posit that very notion or use the very concepts you're using, including "faith" (no matter how anti-conceptual "faith" may be).Please validate the following concepts for us: "taking" and "things" and "assumes." Take us through your *process*. Every step.Ydemoc

  50. Goodbye ydemoc,Not in the mood to listening to your worn out slogans, questions and statements.

  51. Trinity had written: "So, why should I accept your view of reality?"I responded: "Who is claiming that you should?"Trinity didn't answer this question.I then asked: "By the way, why are you arguing against that which your allegedly non-imaginary being has planned?"Trinity responded: "Because my non-imaginary God commands me to."So, we have Trinity essentially admitting that his allegedly non-imaginary deity commands its followers (Trinity) to argue against the very plan that his allegedly non-imaginary being has created and set into motion.And they say that the only way to account for logic, senses, etc. is via this allegedly non-imaginary being!?! Ydemoc

  52. Ydemoc,It's a mystery.Maybe you will leave this time.

  53. A few more thoughts on my most recent comments to Trinity:I had asked: "By the way, why are you arguing against that which your allegedly non-imaginary being has planned?"Trinity responded: "Because my non-imaginary God commands me to."I then responded: "So, we have Trinity essentially admitting that his allegedly non-imaginary deity commands its followers (Trinity) to argue against the very plan that his allegedly non-imaginary being has created and set into motion.And they say that the only way to account for logic, senses, etc. is via this allegedly non-imaginary being!?!"The more I think about it, the more Trinity's answer to me comes across taking an "adversarial" position against his allegedly non-imaginary being. Wow. With followers like Trinity, who needs Satan (adversary)!?!Ydemoc

  54. "how is it that your'e not irrational?" I just might be irrational Hez, but you'll never know.

  55. Trinity responded to my most recent comments with: "It's a mystery. Maybe you will leave this time."What's a mystery? The fact that you would essentially essentially admit that your allegedly non-imaginary deity commands you to argue against the very plan this allegedly non-imaginary being has created and set into motion? Is that the mystery? It's no mystery, even on Christianity's topsy-turvy terms. For on Christianity's terms, it perfectly describes Satan (adversary).Ydemoc

  56. bman,We can keep play the "how do you know" or "how is it" game but you have been exposed already. Thank yourself.if you tell someone to "blow me" your irrational.bman has told someone to "blow me"Therefore bman is irrational.See the proof?

  57. Hez said,"Not in the mood to listening to your worn out slogans, questions and statements."But he also said,"how is it that your'e not irrational?" "How is it a delusion?""By the way do you trust your senses by your senses?"" But "arguing" about how is it that you're not delusional and not a stalker?"Like I said Hez, you're a funny guy."By the way how it is that you're not delusional?" "How is it that you're not delusional?""How is that you're not delusional?"

  58. oops, I messed up the order a bit. But, you get the idea…..unless of course, you're deluded. 🙂

  59. What's irrational about asking someone to blow me? It works when I ask my g/f.

  60. bman,Yea I have always been told im funny."By the way how it is that you're not delusional?" "How is it that you're not delusional?""How is that you're not delusional?" Who sings this?

  61. Hez, I know your type so here's a gift from me to you. You get to have the last…….

  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

  63. Trinity wrote: "Not in the mood to listening to your worn out slogans, questions and statements."You aren't my target audience, Trinity. So this statement of yours doesn't apply. You see, besides entertaining myself and sharpening my writing skills with the responses that I post here, my target audience is all those fence-sitters out there who are looking on and will judge for themselves who has the more rational ideas, and whose worldview has a rational basis (i.e., based on reality). By responding to you like I have, I think the choice is quite clear. It's a win-win!Ydemoc

  64. Hezekiah AhazReynold,My view of reality is based on the revalation of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it's not subjective or abitrary.How is it not subjective? Do you have any idea how many xian denominations are out there or how many views on biblical topics that they have? Some believe in a literal hell, others dont. Some believe that babies go to heaven, others don't. Some believe in a pre-trib "rapture" others in a post-trib, some don't believe in it at all. Some believe in predestination, others don't. Some believe in a young earth, others dont'. And all of those berks will use bible verses to back them up.So again, how is this "revelation" not subjective? Reynold, It's not why you should accept it but why you have to.God commands every man to repent-Acts 17No evidence he exists, so why bother? Remember some of those biblical promises about being able to drink poison eh? Oh right, that was a "later addition"!!What about that verse that promises that if one has the faith of a mustard seed, he'd be able to move mountains?All reasoning is based on faith. Remember God is faith. See the "proof"?So god is just an emotional concept who can't therefore interact with the natural world??I take my senses for granted. Remember taking things for granted assumes faith.Or: reliable past experience. By the way do you trust your senses by your senses?Different senses can be used to verify the others, so your question doesn't quite match up. I don't use "sight" to verify my "sight" if that's what you mean. Also, remember what I said about reliable experiences.Speaking of which, how's about the reliability of that divine revelation you mentioned earlier?Come to think of it: Did you receive this "revelation" through your senses or not?

  65. watching Trinity running away when the questions get too tough is most amusing

  66. Hi Alex,Not really. Your blog doesn't like IPhones. So I have to wait to get on a computer.

  67. "bye ydemoc"and "bye ydemoc"Seems you had no problem entering those comments! BTW, the blog works fine on my iPod touch, which runs the EXACT SAME OS as your iPhone.Trinity, you get asked direct questions and all you do is dodge and run. You've learned from your idol, Sye, very well indeed

  68. Alex,Said: "Seems you had no problem entering those comments!"Yea that's because I was on a computer. On my Iphone after a couple of sentences the cursor freezes. Anyway.Like you and sye, alex, me and ydemoc have a little history. You can go through dawson's blog if you want the back ground. I have been waiting for six months for an argument from ydemoc. He feels he doesn't need to present one. So, why should I keep giving him attention he's a heckler.My Idol Sye? okReynolds,Asked: "So again, how is this "revelation" not subjective?"Because it's not my revelation.Asked: "No evidence he exists, so why bother? Remember some of those biblical promises about being able to drink poison eh? Oh right, that was a "later addition"!!Look all around you. See the evidence? Remember existence "proves" the Christian God.By the way would you drink poison?Asked: "So god is just an emotional concept who can't therefore interact with the natural world??No he's the source of emotions. See the "proof"?Asked: "Speaking of which, how's about the reliability of that divine revelation you mentioned earlier? Come to think of it: Did you receive this "revelation" through your senses or not?No, by the Holy Spirit.By the way how is your past experince reliable?P.S. Alex I have you asked plenty of questions not only here but in dawson's blog. So, you ever plan on answering them?

  69. oh, i'd assumed those facile q's were just trolling! Restate them here and i'll answer them

  70. Ok Alex,When you say you lack belief in God. I have no other choice but to imagine it. So, how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?

  71. "When you say you lack belief in God. I have no other choice but to imagine it. So, how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?"Really? Is THAT your question? Seriously, Trinity, it doesn't actually make sense! I'll see if I can work out what you mean and try and answer.So, when YOU think about ME having no belief that something exists (in this case, biblegod, but could just as easily be Santa, the Easter Bunny, or a Unicorn) YOU have no choice but to imagine that? And how is you imagining that NOT imaginary? Is that it? If it is, then of course what you're imagining is imaginary, as you're having to imagine it, but it doesn't mean that my lack of belief is imaginary. For example, I can imagine the Eiffel Tower, and what I'm imagining is, because I'm imagining it, imaginary, but that doesn't mean the Eiffel Tower is no longer real.Further, I can imagine Father Christmas, and the very fact that I'm imagining it means that it's imaginary in my mind, but that doesn't automatically mean that Santa exists.Whether we're imagining things or not is utterly irrelevant to whether they exist or not. Why do you think that's a good question to ask? It makes you look like a fool who has difficulty separating what's inside his head from what's outside it.

  72. Alex,Great response to Trinity. He will no doubt move on to other questions to which answers have already been given. Though I'm sure it isn't his intention, his persistence both here and on Dawson's blog is paying huge dividends, not only for me because of the entertainment and skill I derive from writing and reading responses to his nonsense, but also because his own questions and responses showcase his bankrupt and irrational worldview for all fence-sitters to see.Ydemoc

  73. Alex,By evading my question you are only creating more problems for the both us. So, let's dig in.Alex said: "Really? Is THAT your question? Seriously, Trinity, it doesn't actually make sense! I'll see if I can work out what you mean and try and answer."Yea, really. Yea, seriously, that's my question. It makes sense to me.Alex said: "YOU have no choice but to imagine that? And how is you imagining that NOT imaginary? Is that it? If it is, then of course what you're imagining is imaginary, as you're having to imagine it, but it doesn't mean that my lack of belief is imaginary"Yes that's it. Ok, this is, actually, what you need to be proving that your lack of belief is not imaginary. Honestly, do you expect me to take it on your say so? So, let me ask you again:When you say you lack belief in God. I have no other choice but to imagine it. So, how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?You said: "For example, I can imagine the Eiffel Tower, and what I'm imagining is, because I'm imagining it, imaginary, but that doesn't mean the Eiffel Tower is no longer real."Yea, alex, I can imagine it to. So, how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?You said: "Further, I can imagine Father Christmas, and the very fact that I'm imagining it means that it's imaginary in my mind, but that doesn't automatically mean that Santa exists."Alex is the imaginary real or not? You just said just becuase something is imaginary doesn't mean it's not real. So, which one is it? Is santa real or not?You said: "Whether we're imagining things or not is utterly irrelevant to whether they exist or not."Ok, if you say so.You said: "Why do you think that's a good question to ask? It makes you look like a fool who has difficulty separating what's inside his head from what's outside it."It's a good question becuase "atheists' think we should take things on their say so. Ok, alex, how do you seperate the imaginary from the real?Have Fun

  74. Trinity"By evading my question you are only creating more problems for the both us. So, let's dig in."I've answered it, as you then go on to point out."Yea, really. Yea, seriously, that's my question. It makes sense to me."Then you are either failing to translate it correctly from your native tongue, or you are insane."Yes that's it. Ok, this is, actually, what you need to be proving that your lack of belief is not imaginary. Honestly, do you expect me to take it on your say so? So, let me ask you again:"Please do, as I'm not clearer as to what the point you think you're trying to make actually is."When you say you lack belief in God. I have no other choice but to imagine it. So, how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?"Yes, that's the same gibberish you posted before, pretty much word for word it seems."Yea, alex, I can imagine it to. So, how is what I'm imagining not imaginary?"If you are imagining something, what is going on in your brain is, by definition, imaginary. This has no relevance WHATSOEVER to whether objects in the real world exist or not."Alex is the imaginary real or not? You just said just becuase something is imaginary doesn't mean it's not real. So, which one is it? Is santa real or not?"If you imagine something that is not real, that thing does not become real through the act of imagining. However, if you imagine something that IS real, that thing continues to be real, just as it was before (and after) you used your brain to model, or 'imagine' it.I said: "Whether we're imagining things or not is utterly irrelevant to whether they exist or not."Trinity said "Ok, if you say so."Do you disagree? Please show your reasoning."It's a good question becuase "atheists' think we should take things on their say so."I don't, I think you should look at actual evidence and make your mind up."Ok, alex, how do you seperate the imaginary from the real?"Jesus H Christ! Are you a simpleton?? Or simply horribly confused?"Have Fun"I can't imagine I will.

  75. Trinity wrote: "Ok, alex, how do you seperate the imaginary from the real?"If you ask yourself where the referents to the concepts you are using in your question can be traced back to, you'll have your answer.As Dawson writes on http://katholon.com/Imagination.htm: "There’s a difference between the real and the imaginary, because there’s a difference between the objects of consciousness and the subject of consciousness. The objects of consciousness exist independent of the processes by which we are aware of them. It is this fundamental truth which theism seeks to hide from the believer as it distracts him with emotionally compelling falsehoods, such as: "God loves you and knows what’s best for you," "You’ll go to hell if you don’t believe," "You’ll go to heaven if you do believe," "Your judgment is only valid so long as it goes along with the theistic party line," etc."And from Dawson's blog entry, "Answering Ecualegacy, Pt. 2," May 15, 2007""I can distinguish reality from imagination by comparing what I perceive with what I imagine…"Ydemoc

  76. Ok Alex,Is your lack of belief in God imaginary?let's start from here.

  77. "Is your lack of belief in God imaginary?let's start from here."Why? You've failed completely to address any of the issues I've raised, and have ignored the further points raised by Ydemoc.My lack of belief in biblegod isn't ANYTHING, it is the ABSENCE of imagining something. This seems to be where you are getting mixed up.Is English your first language? I ask because you seem to have real problems with both expressing yourself, and comprehending ideas explained, in it.A couple of explanations present themselves – 1. You don't understand English and think you are making more sense than you actually are, 2. you are a simpleton who has been utterly mindfucked by religion, or 3. you're a Poe, trollin' up a storm.

  78. Alex,Your little temper tantrum speaks for it self. Spewing out obscenities and denigrations won't make the problem go away.So, what is "not anything"?Ok let me save you the embarrassment. Let's talk about something else.You mentioned evidence. What evidence haslead to your lack of belief in God?

  79. No, Trinity, that's not how it's going to work. If you want to engage further, you need to answer MY questions. You'll find them in the post just before your last reply.

  80. Trinity wrote: "So, what is "not anything"? You have come to the bedrock of a rational worldview by asking this question. Now if you would only recognize it. "Not-anything" is non-existence. Rand writes, "The concept 'nothing' is not possible except in relation to 'something.' Therefore, to have to concept 'nothing,' you mentally specify — in parenthesis, in effect — the absence of something, and you conceive of 'nothing' only in relation to concretes which no longer exist or which do not exist at present.""It is very important that you grasp that 'nothing' cannot be a primary concept. You cannot start with it in the absence of, or prior to, the existence of some object" OPAR p. 149"The concept of 'non-existence' in the same psycho-epistemological position would be literally a blank. Non existence — apart from what it is that doesn't exist — is an impossible concept. It's a hole — a literal blank, a zero.It is precisely on the fundamental level of equating existence and non-existence as some kind of opposites that the greatest mistakes occur." OPAR p. 150Ydemoc

  81. Hezekiah Ahaz"Remember metaphysical claims based on personal experience are subjective and arbitrary. So, why should I accept your view of reality?"Um no, even if one is delusional and the entirety of one's experience does not conform to reality one can still be certain of one's existence without reference to a transcendental source of knowledge.So there is a base that is not subjective or arbitrary therefore your argument fails and you must accept a consensus view of reality.

  82. Hezekiah Ahaz quoting me:"So again, how is this "revelation" not subjective?"Because it's not my revelation.Did I say it was? I pointed out the many differing views of various biblical topics you xians have, showing that it's not very likely that you people got some "divine revelation" since your god is NOT supposed to be the "author of confusion"."No evidence he exists, so why bother? Remember some of those biblical promises about being able to drink poison eh? Oh right, that was a "later addition"!!Look all around you. See the evidence? Remember existence "proves" the Christian God.Wrong. Why do you think I linked to a series of examples of the bible being inaccurate when it came to science in my last reply?Even ignoring that, why would you say to a believer in any other religion who makes the same claim that you just did, albeit about their god(s)?By the way would you drink poison?I'm not the one with the "holy book" who says that I have nothing to fear if I am a true believer. So, I'll just turn that question back to you, with that oh-so-appropriate verse:Mark 16:18. Speaking of subjectivity, you xians can't even figure out among yourselves, as admitted here whether that verse should even be in the bible to begin with!Some interesting theories about that bit of verses."So god is just an emotional concept who can't therefore interact with the natural world??No he's the source of emotions. See the "proof"?You had said that "god is faith". Faith is an emotional belief, is it not? That's not quite the same as saying that your god is the source of emotions.Besides, it's our brains are the source of emotions. Ask any neurologist, or anyone who's had brain damage. And why do you have "proof" in quotes? Is this "proof" (existence itself) actually prove your god or not?"Speaking of which, how's about the reliability of that divine revelation you mentioned earlier? Come to think of it: Did you receive this "revelation" through your senses or not?No, by the Holy Spirit.Doesn't really answer my question…HOW does the "holy spirit" or, "god" of "jesus" give you this "revelation"? And I notice, big surprise, that you have not dealt at all with the myriad of points of view that you xians have, even though you're all supposed to have had this same so-called "revelation" from the same "holy spirit"! Hence why I said that all that nonsense is subjective.

  83. Felix,What base?Reynold,Said: "Did I say it was? I pointed out the many differing views of various biblical topics you xians have, showing that it's not very likely that you people got some "divine revelation" since your god is NOT supposed to be the "author of confusion"."That's what faith is for. The problem is, reynold, even your attempt to subvert my faith presupposes the truth of the bible.Said: "wrong"ok.Said: "Why do you think I linked to a series of examples of the bible being inaccurate when it came to science in my last reply?Idk. Tell me?Said: "You had said that "god is faith". Faith is an emotional belief, is it not? That's not quite the same as saying that your god is the source of emotions. Besides, it's our brains are the source of emotions. Ask any neurologist, or anyone who's had brain damage. And why do you have "proof" in quotes? Is this "proof" (existence itself) actually prove your god or not?"He's also the source of faith. Because, reynolds, the concept proof pressuposes God. That's what transcendental proofs are reynolds.Said: "HOW does the "holy spirit" or, "god" of "jesus" give you this "revelation"?Through his word.Said: "And I notice, big surprise, that you have not dealt at all with the myriad of points of view that you xians have, even though you're all supposed to have had this same so-called "revelation" from the same "holy spirit"!"Well, if there was disagreement about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ then maybe you would have something Going.

  84. Well, if there was disagreement about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ then maybe you would have something Going.Wrong. Your holy book claims infallibility in all of your god's teachings, not just the main things.

  85. Hezekiah Ahab quoting me:"Did I say it was? I pointed out the many differing views of various biblical topics you xians have, showing that it's not very likely that you people got some "divine revelation" since your god is NOT supposed to be the "author of confusion"."That's what faith is for.So when the evidence goes against any claim of yours, like when I point out the massive confusion in xian circles about xian doctrines even though you've all gotten the same "divine revelation", you are just supposed to shut your brain off and just believe anyway? Yeah, I agree here: This does seem to be what faith is for.The problem is, reynold, even your attempt to subvert my faith presupposes the truth of the bible.How so? By pointing out the many differing opinions that xians have on the various topics your holy book is supposed to cover for them? By pointing out that "divine revelation" should have resulted in unity, not confusion?Said: "Why do you think I linked to a series of examples of the bible being inaccurate when it came to science in my last reply?Idk. Tell me?Uh, isn't it obvious? Shouldn't "divine revelation" be uh, accurate when it comes to god describing his own creation? If it is not accurate then why rely on something that's proven to be flawed?"You had said that "god is faith". Faith is an emotional belief, is it not? That's not quite the same as saying that your god is the source of emotions. Besides, it's our brains are the source of emotions. Ask any neurologist, or anyone who's had brain damage. And why do you have "proof" in quotes? Is this "proof" (existence itself) actually prove your god or not?"He's also the source of faith. Because, reynolds, the concept proof pressuposes God. That's what transcendental proofs are reynolds.Transcendental "proofs" like that is nothing but unprovable assertions to me. The concept of "proof" presupposes no such deity or being of any flavour.From what I can tell, that's just an assertion made by your presuppers when you can't get actual evidence to marshal for your side.

  86. Reynolds,Evidence also pressuposes God. It's inescapable.

  87. This comment has been removed by the author.

  88. Another unprovable assertion. If "evidence" presupposes biblegod, then it should be damned easy to show it, shouldn't it?As I once said: the only way that presuppers can "win" any argument is to do what this guy just did, make an unprovable assertion, and declare victory without even trying.So, how would you deal with a memeber of any other religion HA, if they had just made the claim that you just did. (ie. Evidence presupposes "insert name of god here")?

  89. Trinity wrote: "Evidence also pressuposes God. It's inescapable."Asserting a truth statement (or making a claim that something is false) is a confession of the primacy of existence principle, yet the content of what you are asserting forces you to attempt to deny this, by your positing the primacy of consciousness (i.e., an invisible magic being). Not only that, but you are stealing concepts to do so, e.g., "evidence," which is also a concept that can only be formed based on the primacy of existence. So, please, take us through the steps that show us how you came to the concept "evidence" according to your worldview: The Primacy of Consciousness. You have quite a hole to dig yourself out of. Proceed.Ydemoc

  90. "Well, if there was disagreement about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ then maybe you would have something Going. "There is, quite a lot in fact. All four gospels tell a different version.Oops!

  91. Hezekiah Ahaz"Felix,What base?"Comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it?"even if one is delusional and the entirety of one's experience does not conform to reality one can still be certain of one's existence without reference to a transcendental source of knowledge."There is your base.

  92. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbgRemove the foundation, and the building crumbles. Yahweh is nothing more than a borrowed mythical character, then melded into history as seeming to be the only god. Jesus, as a result, becomes just another useless tool.

  93. This thread is fatally flawed as people are arguing about what's written in the Bible. Which version? Which translation? The Bible, like all living things, has evolved over time and changed dramatically from the first version.Which was, itself, a work of fiction.Quoting to and fro without being specific about which version etc is complete rubbish and so is the Bible, all versions.Atheists do not believe there is no GOD. We KNOW there is no God. How? There is not a shred of evidence to say such a being ever existed. If you or anyone can produce such evidence, real evidence such as a video of God speaking to us (joke) like Bin Laden's videos then I, for one, would he more than happy to start believing. Until any proof is available, no God.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: