A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Lacewing]

I didn't say God, I said the Holy Spirit, which indicated the existence of God. There is a difference, I'm sorry if the subtlety eludes you.

Just curious... how do you know it wasn't a disembodied spirit speaking, Doc? There seem to be lots of experiences of those... and some are very angelic. What distinguished for you that it was "the Holy Spirit"?

Did you even read what I posted, I never said it was a disembodied voice. If you can't get it right, just ignore it.

Geez, Doc... I simply saw something about an "audio" recording and figured it had something to do with sound. Why are you so pissed off? I was being genuine with my inquiry about your reasoning/logic for your experience -- that's what we do here, right?

Really the atheists on this forum (Henry excepted) are the most worthless bunch of looser's that I have ever met. You pick a fight over the least little things that don't really matter, except as something to fight about.

I wasn't picking a fight. Why are you even here if you don't want to answer and discuss things? What did I say that was so offensive to you? I, myself, have seen what I interpreted to be an angel, and exchanged conversation with it... and I have heard an audible sound of what I interpreted to be energy sucking out of a room in a house that was having unexplained "visitations". So I was asking you about your experience and what led you to interpret it like you did. But you're acting like a total dickhead (which you accuse other people of)... do you see that?

[Arising_uk]

No, he doesn't.

His only crime, as far as I can tell, is paintin' all atheists with the same brush, which -- of course - is no different than the way many here paint all theists with the same brush.

You miss that he paints us as acting immorally because we don't believe as he does and puts up a strawman to do it. For the more fundamental of his ilk such arguments lead to us not being worthy of being treated as a moral being.

[Arising_uk]

... The first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

Er! No. It was the creationist bible-belters who came down on him like a ton of bricks for his two books back in the late 70's.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Right. And if he said he had video of the fairies at the bottom of his garden then we would be expected to take that seriously too. Nothing very 'circular' about that, dipshit.

It's interesting to me how civil he manages to remain, relative to the abuse he endures. But crudity, arrogance and presumption aren't "wrong" in an Atheist world, because nothing is. So I'm at a loss to explain to you why telling him what he has or has not experienced is beyond what a reasonable person will presume to do.

You should at least go and check out his story, where that's possible; and if it's not, then you should at least given him the benefit of civility, if not assent. The fact remains that you just do not know what he has or has not experienced, and you haven't the faintest idea of how to interpret that experience.

Have your (un-)faith if you will; but you simply have no reason to imagine anyone else is obliged to share it, or that their experience cannot possibly ever exceed yours.

No one 'abused' him. It's you who is the 'dipshit'. A smarmy, disingenuous, conceited p****. There's no other way to describe you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You've assumed your conclusion, then declared it true. It's called "circular reasoning," and it constitutes proof of nothing.

You can doubt thedoc if you wish...but that's arbitrary on your part. His experience was his -- and that it's not proof for you is no stroke against it. Not everything that actually happens is for you.

Right. And if he said he had video of the fairies at the bottom of his garden then we would be expected to take that seriously too. Nothing very 'circular' about that, dipshit.

At one time I had photographic evidence of woods fairies dancing on a pool on my deck. But the photos were also lost in the house fire, but I don't expect you to believe me, you'll claim anything I say is a lie.

So you have a sense of humour after all. I've never called you a liar. You are just always going to interpret things in keeping with your particular beliefs. Btw, what is a 'looser'??

[thedoc]

It's interesting to me how civil he manages to remain, relative to the abuse he endures.

Sorry, It's the way I was brought up, I just can't help myself.

[thedoc]

. Btw, what is a 'looser'??

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=looser

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's interesting to me how civil he manages to remain, relative to the abuse he endures.

Sorry, It's the way I was brought up, I just can't help myself.

Ha! You are just as rude as anyone else, more so than most. SOB is generally a gentleman, but he hasn't been around for ages.

[uwot]

...I think I would now distinguish three types of Atheist:

1. The "Thin," Non-Proselytizing Atheist. -- Says only, "I don't know if there is a God, but I choose not to believe in one."

That pretty much sums up an atheist. Whether they proselytise is entirely up to the individual atheist.

[/i]2. The "Thin" Proselytizing Atheist -- Says, "I don't know any evidence for a God, and YOU CAN"T EITHER...but I'm not giving you any evidence for it, because I don't have any."

"Thin" here refers to how much evidence they're claiming to support their (dis-)belief, which is essentially none.

Most atheists would agree that they don't know any evidence for god. Anyone who insists there is no conceivable evidence for god is by definition an agnostic.

3. The "Thick" Atheist -- Says, "I disbelieve in God because I believe I have evidence or reasons adequate to warrant disbelief."

There are some atheists for whom the lack of evidence for any god is all the evidence or reason to warrant their disbelief. Anyone who believes they can provide a logically sound argument that concludes that god doesn't exist I strongly suspect is wrong, if only because I cannot conceive of any premise that could result in such a conclusion. And while the problem of evil can only be assuaged by nonsensical sophistry, anyone who believes that there is empirical evidence that god doesn't exist, is at least as deluded as anyone who believes there is empirical evidence that god does exist.

It's interesting to me that pointing all this out is considered by them a "nasty little game."

It is not you pointing these things out, and it is not for this that people accuse you of playing nasty little games. It's all this stuff:

I wouldn't call them nasty little games, but Mr Can insists that Atheists could commit crimes to match Hitler and Stalin without reservation. He makes his own definitions and insists that people who use the correct definitions are committed to beliefs they tell him they don't hold. He calls people irrational who do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence. He implies that atheists are tolerant of paedophilia. I could go on.

What's a "game" about being a Theist and saying so? As for "nasty," what's unfair about pushing back against the Dawkins-type Atheist, the overblown, Category 3, pedant, and asking him to put up his evidence? That's a pretty fair "game," it seems to me. If one publishes a book and calls it "The God Delusion," one is obviously asking for a fight...or supposing that nobody will have the cojones to stand up to it.

You only have the cojones to to stand up to the title. Either you haven't read the book; you did so selectively; or you don't have the cojones to stand up to the content.

If Atheism had a case, it would have made it by now. If I'm wrong, here's an open invitation to them to try. So where is "nasty" and "game" in all that? It seems scrupulously fair play to me.

What would be scrupulously fair play, would be if you used the accepted definitions to challenge what atheist actually say and write.

[Greta]

It is NOT arrogant to doubt a person's interpretation of a peak experience. One hundred people could have your kind of experience and there would be numerous interpretations. I have spoken to numerous people about my experiences and most doubt that it's real in some way. Fair enough. Numerous atheists have enjoyed such peak experiences and they remain atheists who enjoy mystical experiences. So one's interpretation is far from sacrosanct.

Many people have an experience and deny the source, I can't do anything about it, I can only relate my experience and interpretation of it.

Who says they are denying "the source"? Nobody has proof. It's all guesswork and assumption. I don't know "the source" of my experiences. There is no need to immediately equate them with Iron Age myths. After all, if we were raised in ancient Rome and had those experiences we might have attributed them to Zeus.

[thedoc]

Why are you even here if you don't want to answer and discuss things?

I do, but what you don't seem to understand is that there are other members of this forum. There are Some members whose posts I will look at no matter what, IC and Henry are 2. others I happen to see in the course of looking at those and a few others, there are some that I don't see unless I click on the post itself. I'm here to carry on a conversation with a few members whose posts I find interesting, I get sucked into correcting posts by some who just don't get it.

[Harbal]

I get sucked into correcting posts by some who just don't get it.

I think it's more that they don't want it rather than don't get it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why are you even here if you don't want to answer and discuss things?

I do, but what you don't seem to understand is that there are other members of this forum. There are Some members whose posts I will look at no matter what, IC and Henry are 2. others I happen to see in the course of looking at those and a few others, there are some that I don't see unless I click on the post itself. I'm here to carry on a conversation with a few members whose posts I find interesting, I get sucked into correcting posts by some who just don't get it.

And you wonder why people think kristians are idiots. Actually, there's a ton of evidence to support this view.
There are some quite brilliant people who post on here, yet you single out an irrational, bigoted, hateful tree-stump of a creature who doesn't even belong on a philosophy site (why don't kristians ever want to hang around other kristians? Do they find each other too boring?), and someone who never has anything more to say than *sthug* or 'nuf sed'. Very telling.

[Harbal]

And you wonder why people think kristians are idiots.

It's certainly not for the want of being told.

yet you single out an irrational, bigoted, hateful tree-stump of a creature

You've got a real talent for description, VT.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's certainly not for the want of being told.

I don't get it.