crotalus_p Forum Posts (2,789)

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Firstly Marx did not preach , secondly marx was not as anti religion as he was made out to be , his “religion I the opiate of the masses” remark is more often than not taken out of context usually by communist leaders that like to cherry pick what sounds good in a sound bite




Mike one can only deduce that you meant to cause insult to atheists with that ill thought out statement and it might have if it where not for a fact that you appear to be ignorant to

You will find that Richard the lion heart sold just about everything he owned and almost bankrupted the country he was king of to fund the third crusade the crusade's where over who had the bigest sky fairy

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

I will answer you later mike (in about 7 hours) I have a class to get to

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Its not like we eat puppies





Of course you would be able to share your thoughts with the person you love if someone truly loves you they will make the effort to understand and accept you point of view




That implie's that the person you marry will have all the answers

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

No I don’t thinks so we would just have to agree to disagree (in RL I am very submissive so you would win most arguments anyway, )


The only problem is how the children should be raised (im thinking 2 boys and 1 girl
)

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

When you talk about being open do you mean open to being converted ??
Or just willing to participate in things that are important to you , ie . Church events , charitable work ect???

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Aries you have broken my heart

We could of been great togeather

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

eeeeerr yes , yes i did

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Aries , a question for you , say you met someone you fell head over heals in love with and that person happened to be an atheist (you found out after you fell in love ) , would you accept a marriage proposal ??,

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Really

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

The question is why would you want to insult an atheist ?? (or for that matter anyone else )

RE: Maths Mystery... Unsolvable?????

60-40 for room =20 -5for caretaker = 15 -(5x3 what was given back)= 0 no missing money

RE: Maths Mystery... Unsolvable?????

Your math is wrong

RE: Are u single or very single?

I will be waiting an eternity but you are worth the wait

RE: Are u single or very single?

Yes , I am holdig out untill Claayer gets disparate

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Just because you find something after 5 minutes of googling does not mean it is a fact , finding something on a random internet page maybe enough to certify it as fact in you mind but my mind requires more substantial justification

What Lips My Lips Have Kissed, And Where, And Why (Sonnet XLIII)

What Lips My Lips Have Kissed, And Where, And Why (Sonnet XLIII)

What lips my lips have kissed, and where, and why,
I have forgotten, and what arms have lain
Under my head till morning; but the rain
Is full of ghosts tonight, that tap and sigh
Upon the glass and listen for reply,
And in my heart there stirs a quiet pain
For unremembered lads that not again
Will turn to me at midnight with a cry.
Thus in winter stands the lonely tree,
Nor knows what birds have vanished one by one,
Yet knows its boughs more silent than before:
I cannot say what loves have come and gone,
I only know that summer sang in me
A little while, that in me sings no more.

Edna St. Vincent Millay

RE: ===== PAST LIFE REGRESSION=====

I am an Advanced Hypnotic Consultant (fancy way of saying hypnotist) long story short you mind will create the past life/’s if can be fun or it may be scary if the hypnotist does not know what they are doing

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

I don’t try and push any ones buttons mike , merely speak the truth using logical arguments it that pushes your buttons than maybe you should ask yourself why



Are you blaming me for the flaw’s in you argument ???

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Have you not been paying attention ??? My stance is that all religion is bunk





To see the answer to this question mike see the part of your post highlighted in red







That mike is just a false statement , by the way aren’t you the one that is always agreeing with what those guys said in the bible




I have never said that, What I have said is that the scientific method completely obliterates the idiocy of surrendering to ignorance and calling god



I have put forth plenty of arguments based on scientific fact


I have allready showen that statment to be false

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Firstly evolution is proven scientifically to the point where it is referred for all intensive purposes a 100% correct , secondly Evolution has been questioned via means of peer review and it has stood the test of peer review unlike creationism





That is not what an atheist does an atheist does not have to convince them selves that there is no hell because they are not convinced by the evidence presented to suggest there is a hell



Well did they or did they not use Christianity / the bible as justification for their actions ???

There is nothing wrong with having likeminded friends there is no faith to build up That is just an out and out lie Statically if you are an atheist you are more likely to be of a higher level of intelligence that some one that believes in a deity that’s just a fact

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Ray may be right for one reason and wrong for another.

Ray may be right in so far that I consider myself a natural free-thinker. I tried to be a good christian. I really did try. However, I couldn't wrap my mind around the fallacious logic I was being taught. I never really bought creationism. My dad is a gap creationist. It just never made much sense to me. Also, the brutality and barbarism in the bible sickened me. I couldn't justify God as being merciful and just after reading Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and many other verses.

Ray is also wrong because I was raised by a pastor. I grew up believing in Jesus. When I was young, I believed what my parents told me. I believed in God and Hell. I was even saved at the age of five (like many, many children are) because the stories scared me horribly. It wasn't until my early twenties that I really started having problems with christian logic. I even rededicated my life to God during my early adulthood, because I was afraid that maybe I was too young to be saved at five. I rededicated my life again at age twenty-seven, and again at age thirty-six. Did God ignore those times that I sincerely came to him in prayer, asking him to come into my heart and to guide my life in a way that would glorify him?

Of course, according to the second sentence, I'm obviously lying. My honesty has been discredited before I could even start. It's a strawman. The sentence assumes that because I'm an atheist, I don't believe in objective morality. That couldn't be further from the truth. Moral objectivism deserves a post of its own.

I am a christian who became an atheist at middle age. If you say, 'No true christian would become an atheist in his late thirties' then that is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.' It is a fallacy. The only reason someone would fall into such a fallacy is to avoid admitting that he's wrong.

I'll close with this thought. How dare someone tell me that I was this or that without knowing me. Ray does not know me personally. He has no right to say that I wasn't a true christian. I do however agree with him on one thing. He would say that I was never saved. I agree, I was never saved because nobody is ever saved. The magic words do not work.

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Hey Ray! That is Pascal's Wager! Just like the last item, you are critisizing someone for using the technical name of the argument.

Wikipedia defines Pascal's Wager like this.
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.
IOW, since the existence of God can not be proven with certainty, we should bet that he does exist on the off-handed chance that he does actually exist and will throw us in heck if we do not believe.

I have several problems with this wager.

First, the wager assumes that I can flip a switch in my head and magically believe again. It wasn't that easy for me to believe in God when I did actually believe. What I was being told to believe stretched credibility to the breaking point. I was always asking questions and receiving no good answers. Why would anyone think that I can believe again just like that?

Secondly, the wager assumes that God would reward someone for just going through the motions. Most evangelicals I know would not expect God to reward a man for not believing, but coming to church every week just so he wouldn't go to heck. They say that you must actually believe in Jesus with all your heart, to be saved. I don't see how you could slide on into heaven on Pascal's Wager according to evangelical theology.

Thirdly, Blaise Pascal is not a good role model for evangelicals. He was catholic during most of his life, but he had a few beliefs that strayed from the mainstream teachings of catholicism. The wager wasn't even invented by Pascal as an argument for theism. He was doing a thought experiment on probability. He even recognized some of problems with the wager. I doubt that Pascal would have approved of the wager being used as an argument by evangelicals (whom he would have concidered as heretics). Which brings up the next point.

There are several other problems I have with it, but I'll end with this one. The wager can be used by any religion. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a religion that couldn't use it. Evangelicals use it as a reason one should follow their faith, but what about islam? The wager works well with islam as well. What about judaism? Hinduism? Sikhism? For the wager to work, I'd have to consider every one of these religions. That would be impossible because most religions exclude salvation to anyone practicing other religions. It just wouldn't work to try practicing all religions.

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Technically, Ray described the teleological argument not the watchmaker analogy. They're both essentially the same with some subtle differences, so I may be picking nits here.

The obvious point to make here is anytime anyone uses creation and design as an argument it is automatically the teleological argument. That's just what the argument is called. It's not an insult. If you were to give me an argument and I recognized it and said, "Hey that's the X argument," I wouldn't nessecarily be calling it a fallacy. I just knew what to call it.

When a person uses something in nature (like clouds, trees, the sun) and says how beautiful (complicated, useful, "fine tuned") it is, that is the teleological argument. I have been given this argument many times. It is used by all of the religions I've had contact with. (Possible exception being Budhism.) Usually appended with a question like, "You don't think it all happened by chance, do you?" I usually answer it with, "Maybe it did." because they don't expect an answer like that. The problem I see with the teleological argument is that it assumes that complexity implies design or a sentient superbeing that was the designer.

A missionary for a local bible camp used to visit me every week. He was very fond of the watchmaker analogy. Usually, he'd take off his cap and observe that the cap obviously had a designer. Of course, how could I say no to that. Then he'd speculate that my cat (who loves everybody and likes to sit in his lap) also must have had a designer. The problem I have with that is that the cap was constructed. It came from a factory where millions of the things are made each week. The cap was built. It was stitched together. It's beginning was it's design. The cat on the other hand wasn't constructed. It was not bolted together by a factory worker. The cat was born from another cat. Like I was born from another human. Our designer and builder appears to be our own species.

So Ray, if you don't like me telling you what your argument is called, don't give me an argument I've heard before.

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Ok well lets get the response mike has asked me for out of the way before I deal with some of the other posts he has made , it should be noted that 1-6 are not mine I am tired and don’t fell like writing crap loads anyway seeing as mike copied the entirety of the op I am sure he will not mind (this does not mean that I fully agree with every point)



The first mistake is calling atheism a belief , it is simply a non belief you need nothing to be a non believer



First, I have yet to be presented with credible evidence according to my standard of quality. I have been given genuine straw man arguments as proof of God. Usually, the christians will try to debunk evolution, thinking that belief in evolution is the reason for my atheism. It is not. Evolution is an easier idea to refute than the lack of evidence of God's existence and my mistrust of biblical scripture (the real reasons I'm an atheist). So, they attack something I know little about, instead of answering my questions about the bible.

Secondly, circular reasoning is abundant in christian theology. The thought behind bible inerrency is circular reasoning.
Anything the bible says is 100% true, because it says that everything it says is 100% true.
I could write a book that says it's 100% true, but that doesn't mean that it is.

Thirdly, Ray himself is a great quote miner. He just recently wrote a post where he suggests that Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) may have recanted in his later years. He uses a quote from Twain to prove his statement. However, the evidence from most of Twain's writing suggests that Twain actually became more anti-religious as he got older.

To close, I'll say this. If you can give me some actual credible evidence for the existence of God, I wouldn't be calling it quote mining, circular reasoning, or strawmen. I'd call it credible evidence. Also, I wish proselytizers would just give me evidence instead of trying to argue. I've heard all the arguments. Just because you are the one arguing doesn't mean I'd believe you over that last guy that gave me that argument. Also, Ray is painting all atheists with the same brush. That's a silly thing to do, because unlike christians, atheists have no doctrinal statements to adhere to.

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

No , but there is no denying the fact that the man has spouted some of the most idiotic arguments of all time

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Dawikns are based on scientific facts


Mike if you take an unbiased look at rc’s arguments you will see that he is extremely ignorant on just about every topic he argues








I have homework to do If I have time later I will point them out to you , but if you can not see them at the moment I fear I will need to draw them in crayon for you to understand

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

Given that he is the same idiot that came up with “bananas the atheists nightmare” I doubt it

RE: The Atheist Starter Kit

It is insulting because it is intended to mock in a childish manner , something which it does not do very well because of the significant amount of flaws in it , when you look at the source ( Ray Comfort ) it’s not surprising

RE: God is good

Just one question my dear, which god ???

Sarah Palin Witchcraft Blessing

Talk about persecuting your own people

just remember you risk Palin (an evangelical Christian)being president , Obama is the lesser of two evils as for him being Muslim it really just seems that he pulled that out for the vote