|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 4, 2018 22:23:27 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 19, 2018 17:07:42 GMT 10
The term athiest is merely a word dreamed up by theists to stick as a label on people who refuse to believe the god bullshit without absolute proof.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 19, 2018 17:09:44 GMT 10
I am NOT an athiest, I am merely a sketic who refuses to believe unproven bullshit unless I can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, smell it, measure it, and/or calculate it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 20, 2018 5:26:14 GMT 10
Then you are an empiricist, which is inherently contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 20, 2018 8:26:04 GMT 10
I am NOT an athiest, I am merely a sketic who refuses to believe unproven bullshit unless I can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, smell it, measure it, and/or calculate it. Spelling first: it’s atheist and sceptic - unless you're an American in which case it would be skeptic. Grammar next: "unproven" is American. The past participle of "prove" in British English and by extension Aus/E and NZ/E is "proved". Quite striking, your preference for American usage given your grandstanding about how evil everything American is. Occam is spot on correct in characterising you as an empiricist. I've been saying that for a couple of years now. Don't get us wrong! Empirical reasoning has its place! "Seeing is believing" has to be the ultimate empirical statement. And it's true. Seeing IS believing until the camera lies or the light plays tricks or what you "see" turns out to be a mirage ... So you, KTJ, want us to accept that the only "proof" (oh fuck, we're not back on that boring old treadmill are we!) is an empirical one: for a duck to be a duck it has to look like a duck, waddle like a duck and quack like a duck. Fair enough. But you can't have it both ways. I read your posts - your very repetitive posts because you never say anything different - and from where I sit you look like an atheist, you waddle like an atheist and you quack like an atheist. Therefore you have to be an atheist, right? Huh? WTF!!! You say you're not an atheist??? But according to your "logic" whereby the only "proof" is grounded in empiricism, you are an atheist! Mate, you have a problem!
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 20, 2018 9:15:29 GMT 10
The only people who ever stick the atheist label on me are religionists. Never me.
So go figure about the insecurity of religionists.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 20, 2018 11:15:12 GMT 10
Satan is an unproven myth. Just like gods.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 20, 2018 11:18:01 GMT 10
Trolls are back.
What am I saying? They never left.
Maybe "troll" doesn't quite cut it. "Viral infection" springs to mind. Or "parasitic infestation" perhaps ...
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 20, 2018 11:19:15 GMT 10
Provide proof and the “trolls” (as you call them) will no longer be a pesky problem in demanding proof.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 20, 2018 16:30:08 GMT 10
Demand all you like. It's not about "proof".
This isn't about me being a believer, an empiricist or a cynic. Or even an atheist. Any atheist worth his salt could rip your "it's gotta waddle like a duck, quack like a duck and fart like a duck" empiricism to shreds and not compromise his atheism one single jot.
I'm bored now. You've been trolling the Religion Board in the same way and in exactly the same terms for years. I don't think I can be bothered explaining it any more to you.
You reject religious faith. Fine! I get it! Your options are:
1. Go on trolling the Religion Board being rude to people who are sincere in their faith no matter what insults and sledges you lob into the board. That sounds boring and makes people wonder about whether or not you have a life off board. Or...
2. You can decide that it's a lost cause and find something else to do.
Up to you.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 21, 2018 11:14:21 GMT 10
I am NOT an athiest, I am merely a sketic who refuses to believe unproven bullshit unless I can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, smell it, measure it, and/or calculate it. Then the question is, why do you trust your senses? You need to begin with the belief that your senses are reliable. Idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 21, 2018 11:21:38 GMT 10
If Christians don't believe in a "Sky-Fairy" ... do they believe in a "cavern-troll"? i.e. "Satan"? Are you asking if I believe in a hyperbolic Ad Hoc Caricature invented by atheists to trivialize subject matter they are ignorant about? No, I don't. And something needs to be said about you and glass houses, before you launch your next complaint, Phil.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 21, 2018 11:32:29 GMT 10
I am a GOD.
Now disprove that.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 21, 2018 11:35:43 GMT 10
I am a GOD. Now disprove that. Easily. God is Omniscient. And you know very little.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 21, 2018 11:37:13 GMT 10
Are you asking if I believe in a hyperbolic Ad Hoc Caricature invented by atheists to trivialize subject matter they are ignorant about? No, I don't. I'm getting at a more fundamental issue. That is: Christians get to "pick and choose" which bits of the story they believe in. The "infallible word of God" is therefore not infallible. The arc? Walking on water? Loaves and fish? Parting of the Red Sea? Eve from a rib? Jonah and the whale? When things get too "ridiculous" - Christians "junk" those bits of the story. My point: Either you accept the "infallible word of God" or you don't. Question is, whether or not it's literal truth. Some things can be true, yet not literally so.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 21, 2018 11:41:12 GMT 10
I am a GOD. Now disprove that. Easily. God is Omniscient. And you know very little. That isn't proof. Until such time as you absolutely disprove it, I am a GOD. I don't need to prove I'm a god because gullible people can have faith that I am a GOD. Non believers (such as yourself) can wear the label of atheist.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 21, 2018 12:54:22 GMT 10
And furthermore ... yer grammar's shithouse!
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 21, 2018 13:03:10 GMT 10
Eh??
Somebody got banned?
Who did that … the Canadian religionist?
Was that his method of winning an argument, just like the days when Matty-boy controlled News Talkback?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 21, 2018 13:12:17 GMT 10
Easily. God is Omniscient. And you know very little. That isn't proof. Until such time as you absolutely disprove it, I am a GOD. I don't need to prove I'm a god because gullible people can have faith that I am a GOD. Non believers (such as yourself) can wear the label of atheist. Saying "I am Napoleon until someone disproves it" doesn't disprove the existence of Napoleon. It just makes you certifiable.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 21, 2018 13:51:11 GMT 10
So are you saying that your imaginary god is certifiable?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 24, 2018 2:01:06 GMT 10
So are you saying that your imaginary god is certifiable? ]No, I am saying that YOU, are having an identity crisis.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 24, 2018 2:03:10 GMT 10
... And something needs to be said about you and glass houses, before you launch your next complaint, Phil. Oh, I missed that remark. Let me say this: I've been back from my banning 14 days now and have not once attacked he who cannot be named. On the reverse side, I have received 30 unprovoked attacks in that time from he who cannot be named. I rest my case. And then you turn around and attack others, expecting that somehow you should be given a free pass? Sorry. You aren't right just because you scream the loudest/most.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 24, 2018 7:56:02 GMT 10
What "others" are you talking about? People who's worldview differ from your own. I don't think they deserve to be the subject of ridicule on that basis alone.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 24, 2018 9:59:47 GMT 10
All of these questions were rhetorical with the intent to demean and ridicule. Dear Christians, Do you hold conversations with the creator of the universe? Do you "hear a voice"? ... is it like a real voice, or just silent "meaning" in your brains? Are you "talking" to the "Son", "Father" or "Ghost"? All of them? One of them, does it vary? Have you ever asked a question? Have you received an "answer"? What form was the answer? Like an actual voice? Just a "feeling"? Just "circumstantial events"? How do you know it is real?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 25, 2018 0:33:26 GMT 10
Not rhetorical at all. You or Pim can reply to those questions if you wish. You from an ex-Pentecostal now Baptist point of view, Pim from an ex-Catholic point of view. Or any other Christian who wishes to answer those questions. Those questions get to the nitty-gritty* of Christian claims. Its not a question of your invitation to query, rather your intent to be objective about the answers you are given. Your questions don't come from a place of genuine curiousity, but of malice. You said it yourself in the past, nothing could convince you to be a theist. That doesn't sound like the open minded individual you are pretending to be.
|
|