I think this sums it up.



Wholeheartedly agree. Which reminds me of the old quote from Pen Jillette:

"If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."

This one generally gets ignored by believers. You'd think that the obvious truth would hit home at some point wouldn't you?

 

No, you are giving credence to something because you believe it to be so. I am asking you, on a purely logical level, to explain to me why one second hand account should be more believable than another.

Let's take Jesus out of it. I tell you Mount Everest is made of cheese. Someone else tells you it is made out of chocolate. You are unable to verify this yourself as Mount Everest was destroyed. We are both adamant, we both claim to have sampled it before its destruction and am sure of our facts.

What process do you use to ascertain which has more validity?

 

Evidence.

 

Youve got to hand it to him , this must be the one the longest threads in SN

 

 

Evidence of what? You cannot verify it, you only have my word for it, or the other guys word for it.

You can discount both as on the face of it, they appear pretty far fetched.

However, if you think one of us may be right, what are you going to do?

 

Thread should have been locked after this post.

I presume the rest of it is the same old pish

Did Leslie post in here - can't be arsed reading it all

 

Do you have any witnesses?

 

yes, it the same old same old from JT - just label any request for evidence any appliance of simple logic and you are an Anti-theist

he has nowhere really else to go

why did god let the Dinosaurs roam for 400 million years then wipe them out

in fact why extinguish 99.9% of all the creatures who have ever existed

why create a world that allows human life on only 5 odd % of it - and in geological timescales 99.9% hazardous to human life

why subject a human world to the mercy of natural forces that world cause an extinction of humanity (massive meteor strike - as in the past, massive volcanic eruptions - as in the past)

 

I don't know why you are being so evasive, you are usually very honest and open in your answers, even if we don't agree.

There no witnesses in any of this, Cheese Everest or Jesus. You have to make a judgement based on something, in the absence any corroborative evidence (me or the gospels), there has to be a process.

I quite like the thought of a cheese Everest, though, I have to say. You certainly wouldn't be worried about running out of supplies, even the diet was a bit samey.....

 

apparently Russia is bulldozing a "cheese mountain" as we speak

maybe the saintly Putin knows something we don't

 

My point is that there's no evidence or witnesses for the edible Everest, yet there is for God and His Son, Jesus Christ. I just don't think your simile is sufficient for you to drive home your point. It reminds me of the Dawkinsian/Russell 'spaghetti monster' argument; it's poppycock.

 

But, there isn't. There is not one contemporary witness of Jesus. Zilch. Nada. All accounts of him are well after the fact.

Most of the divine attributes are already attributed to previous deities, why don't you believe in them?

It just seems so odd that you ignore all logic and evidence for this one thing, when the rest of your life depends on it.

But, if you're happy.......

 

But you can't prove that there is no FSM. What about the people who have 'felt' his noodly appendages?

 

Add wars to the tech graph and it makes alot more sence, more development happens during war than any other time

 

Pastafarians are entitled to their beliefs. Now, do not alter my words.

 

I think we have to accept that rarely will a believer change their view on questions of faith unless they are already dissatisfied with their position. Faith exempts itself from the requirement for evidence. To have faith, for the analytical sort, means they have usually considered most of what you have to say and there is nothing to be gained from trying. A lot are understandably quite shaky in their faith (because of the gymnastics required, supported by at least weekly reinforcement and isolation from opposing opinions), and sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference as they can make all the outward noises of being convinced until it collapses.

 

I'm very happy thanks, Geezer.

 

As Larry?

 

So, here we have the conclusion^.

But this pattern will carry on and on and on; again and again and again............... as soon as someone mentions the word God or Jesus! >

People love going round and round in circle to go really, really dizzy.

 

yes, this probably explains the dramatic "flipping" we see, from a fundamentalist anti-theist to theists, and vice versa

in my experience the most vociferous anti smokers are by and large ex smokers themselves

 

In the same way, aggressive anti-homosexuality peeps seem to have an unconscious gay person each, dormant inside them, which they resist and resist to their utmost, with their protest.

'God and religion' seems to be more frictional and generates more dialogue through repeat resistsnce due the theist's belief in the Almighty, which has no proof of existence whatsoever to the anti-theists. To the anti-theists, there's nothing more exciting than proving the believer totally delusional and mental, at least on unseen God's matter. With **** and homosexuals, at least cigarettes as an object and homosexuality as a behaviour are 'seen' things.

Homosexuality did go through such lengthy discussions with 'same old repeated over and over' and still does; in order to prove the practice as immoral and as the disease of the mind. When such protest from the anti-gay 'closet' ones was at its peak, it could have become as visible to us, had the internet tool existed, then.

 

What??!! Exactly how big a fool do you need to be to quote a verse showing that God is prepared to go to the extremes of child sacrifice to show "that God the Father is loving"?

Free thinking seekers of truth, unencumbered by the burden of medieval superstition.

__________________________________________________ _____________
Really sorry I missed this thread .....

 

 

Nothings going to work I'm afraid...

 

Second image is obscure. I reckon it's Bruce Lee.

 

I think you could be right

 

The thing is I am quite happy for all the “fluff” tbh

The Church Fete, the sense of community that the church can bring even the singing of the Lords prayer in schools

That’s fine, because it is essentially well meaning, the tales from the bible are nothing more fairy tales with no more validity than Hansel and Gretel or Aesop’s fables but the fundamental stuff, the drivel you see JT spout

That is demonstrably dangerous – and in my view should be seen where it belongs, with all the pseudo “science” – with all the other “woo” like

Homeopathy - which is basically water

Reiki - which seems to consist of transferring “energy” by rapidly moving, but not touching mind, your hands over someone’s head – the exact nature of transfer for obvious reasons is never explained

Clairvoyancey - guesswork (educated)

Mediums - interestingly actually speaking to the dead it seems is quite easy, it is getting them to talk back that is the tricky bit

Reading Tealeaves – guesswork

Dousing, walking around with sticks

Tarot Cards – the list is endless

For reference here is a complete list of woo/irrational nonsense

http://www.crispian.net/page2/page2.html

what you notice they all have in common, is that none zero nada have any basis in fact/evidence all that is required is faith/belief – blind faith and evidenceless belief

not healed by Reiki, not healed by a “life force” transfer – someone moving their hand over your body – mmmm you don’t believe, that’s the problem – it’s you not the total bo;;0x that is Reiki

where this gets so so dangerous is when people of power/influence believe this cr4p

in a famous interview with john Humphry’s on Radio 4, after a grilling regarding the Iraq war – and the reasons for its start etc

Tony Blair – simply said, hence ending the line of questioning

“listen John – I only know what I believe”

(remember religion is the end of the conversation not the beginning)

Job done – he only knows what he believed (as do all the religious fvctards that run things, from ISIS to George Bush via the Saudi monarchs)

Presumably everyone would be happy if TB consulted the stars/tealeaves or the voices in his head from a long dead relative when he made the decision to send sons/daughters/fathers/mothers to their deaths

Keep it as fairy tales

And as for the inevitable weary argument that I am an anti-theist, I absolutely understand that JT HAS to take that view – he has no real choice

But rationally you can’t be anti-something that does not exist, I am no more an anti-theist than I am anti mermaids or anti unicorns or anti the man in the moon or anti "tarot" reading or anti astrology

"anti" only has currency if you first accept the initial premise - that there actualy are unicorns to be "anti" against - its simple daft circular logic, but logically they have to use this ridiculous logic, they have no choice

if it makes some people happy fine - but lets all simply acknowledge it is simple "woo"

as a footnote a good friend of mine went through two years of his life absolutely believing he was Napoleon Bonaparte - his belief was very personal and very real but sadly he was not Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

So, can we call you an anti-theism, anti-woo or anti-bullsh7t one, if not anti of any theist as such?

 

Applies just as well to the other side of the argument.