Why he is dishonest.

Originally posted by Agerg
This doesn't make sense. Your fundamental premise is that there is a binary partition of people: those who are atheists and those who are not atheists (i.e. theists)
In this case (with respect to my previous post) we have either:
a) not believing there are no gods is equivalent to atheism - which with no amount of creativity looks tenable to me.
b) not beli ing that unless I see a good argument to back it up
If (b) then my previous objection stands.

weak atheism, which is the threshold position for being an atheist, is the absence of belief in a god,
and not a belief that there is no god.

Thus if you
have no belief that there is a god
and
have no belief that there isn't a god

you are a weak atheist.

Your position 5 of indifference points to both
not having a belief that there is a god
and
not having a belief that there isn't a god.

The important absence of belief is the
not having a belief in god.
It doesn't matter what else you don't believe.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
The atheist is as foolish as the believer. Both have blind faith: one in the creator and the other in blind science. Both are deluded. Both have the leap of faith that cannot be proved. The believer puts all his faith in a god he cannot prove, the atheist puts all his faith in a science he cannot prove. Both belong to clubs which are mutually exclusive, an ...[text shortened]... he God Delusion" is as biased as "The Holy Bible" or "The Bhagavad Gita" or "The Koran".

If you band together the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible ...........then you do not know anything about the Bhagavad Gita and your comments are baseless and whimsical.

True....the Bible is blind created by mundane persons of recent times.

The Bhagavad Gita is eternal and contains perfect knowledge spoken by the Lord Himself and has existed for eternity being spoken at every new creation over eternity.

The Bhagavad Gita and the Bible is as................Gold is to lead.

The Bible presents false knowledge.

The Bhagavad Gita does not.

Originally posted by Dasa
The Bible presents false knowledge.

The Bhagavad Gita does not.

Are you able to quote the bit in the Bhagavad Gita that authorizes genocide and authorizes you to call for genocide?

Originally posted by Dasa
If you band together the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible ...........then you do not know anything about the Bhagavad Gita and your comments are baseless and whimsical.

True....the Bible is blind created by mundane persons of recent times.

The Bhagavad Gita is eternal and contains perfect knowledge spoken by the Lord Himself and has existed for eternity being ...[text shortened]... ..........Gold is to lead.

The Bible presents false knowledge.

The Bhagavad Gita does not.

You have no evidence to back up the gold to lead argument. The Bible has more truth and logic than your scripts.

You still have not apologized to the forum for being caught out a liar thus everything and anything you say are lies lies lies. How do you expect anyone to believe anything you're saying. Darn Fool!

Originally posted by FMF
Are you able to quote the bit in the Bhagavad Gita that authorizes genocide and authorizes you to call for genocide?

Hey...don't forget, killing of humans are right, killing of animals are not - yeah the priorities of Dasa's religion is animals first and then humans. Wow, no wonder we see right through Dasa and his religion.

Dasa, is the God of your religion the same God as in our religion? I want your opinion on this please?

Originally posted by Dasa
If you band together the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible ...........then you do not know anything about the Bhagavad Gita and your comments are baseless and whimsical.

True....the Bible is blind created by mundane persons of recent times.

The Bhagavad Gita is eternal and contains perfect knowledge spoken by the Lord Himself and has existed for eternity being ...[text shortened]... ..........Gold is to lead.

The Bible presents false knowledge.

The Bhagavad Gita does not.

Damn it! You are so funny, you nearly made me choke on my pork chop. I was just taking a big chunk when I scrolled to this post, and I nearly lost my gravy out the side of my mouth.
You gotta stop this comedy - izz juzz too much man! 😀 😀

Don't stop though - you're on a roll - keep 'em coming. Just don't make me choke on my beer or whatever meat I'm eating next time, pretty please. 😉

-m.

Originally posted by Dasa
If you band together the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible ...........then you do not know anything about the Bhagavad Gita and your comments are baseless and whimsical.

True....the Bible is blind created by mundane persons of recent times.

The Bhagavad Gita is eternal and contains perfect knowledge spoken by the Lord Himself and has existed for eternity being ...[text shortened]... ..........Gold is to lead.

The Bible presents false knowledge.

The Bhagavad Gita does not.

You do not know anything about the Bible and your comments are baseless lies.

Not whimsical. I don't find anything whimsical about your lies about the Bible.

Originally posted by googlefudge
"any god who desires worship doesn't deserve it. any god who deserves worship wouldn't desire it"

Good quote... should be attributed ;-p

No. This quote is a lot like your Pascal's Wager website. Someone made it up because it sounds good and promotes their idea of what my God is like. You cannot describe my God in terms of Man. In fact, you do not have the slightest clue what my God is like because He is not your God. Describing the Creator in such flippant terms is blasphemy. You can come up with phrases like this and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" all day, but they mean nothing.

You say you await my counter arguments. I have none. I am not like jaywill who could sit and whip out verse after verse to back up his argument. The logic of this website appears sound on the face of it, I assume even more so if you are atheist. But it is like comparing apples and oranges. The logic on this website is the logic of a man who was once Christian and who has since renounced his beliefs (probably because of some sort of insult to his person, whether emotional or physical I have no idea) and has taken up the mantle of stating his case to the "people like him" on the internet. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder that is quite large, and he's trying so hard to convince someone of his "epiphany" that I can't help but wonder this man's motivation. He presents his case almost like a lawyer. He puts his singularly-minded nose to the grindstone and doesn't let up until he's convinced that he's stated his case so overwhelmingly that no one in their right mind could possibly refute it.

But under all this logic and single-minded devotion to his cause lies his obvious hatred for God. I do not know this man's background (and I suspect that neither do you), but he states his case so well, in fact, that I submit that he has had help. I sense a corruption at work here. A satanic taint that is almost palpable. Frankly this site actually scared me while I was reading it because the logic is so good. This man has either done his homework exceedingly well, with a talent for building and presenting a case, or he's had some rather nefarious guidance. What tips me off though, is this underlying feeling of the immensity of his hatred for God that oozes through his entire work. I imagine this "feeling" I get while reading this site is this thread of the satanic guidance he's received which seems to wind throughout the logic. I would ask any other Christians reading this post to go visit the website and read through the pages of this man's "logical proof" and see if they don't get the same feeling as they read through it. My mind is not "logical" enough (I never studied Logic in school, nor much Philosophy either) to actually pick apart this man's logic and refute his arguments, but I do sense a repugnance of the Holy Spirit within me as I read it. And no, I cannot explain this.

I know perfectly well this is not what you expected from me regarding this website. His arguments "seem" to be logical on the face of them and he has crafted an impressive case. I do not have the tools to refute what he has presented, but I can see that it is not the casual work of a man who probably does not have the skill within himself normally to craft such a case. He's had help, this seems obvious to me. Supernatural help. And yes, I realize this sounds completely stupid to you. I'm sorry if I have disappointed you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. This quote is a lot like your Pascal's Wager website. Someone made it up because it sounds good and promotes their idea of what my God is like. You cannot describe my God in terms of Man. In fact, you do not have the slightest clue what my God is like because He is not your God. Describing the Creator in such flippant terms is blasphemy. You can c ...[text shortened]... extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" all day, but they mean nothing.

[SNIP]

"any god who desires worship doesn't deserve it. any god who deserves worship wouldn't desire it"


Do you think any atheist gives a damn about blaspheming? (or that anyone should?)
Blasphemy is saying that which insults a god.
Atheists don't believe in god's, and are not going to worry about insulting them any more than
people worry about insulting the tooth fairy.

You are right, I have no idea what god is like (I also don't care), neither do you, given there is no
evidence that any god/s actually exists, let alone what it/they are like.

The quote doesn't require knowledge of the nature of god, and doesn't claim any.
It simply says that anyone worth worshipping wouldn't desire to be worshipped because the
very desire to be worshipped disqualifies you from deserving it.

If you believe your god deserves to be worshipped but requires people to worship it then the
person who uttered this quote (and everyone who agrees with it which would be pretty much
all atheists I would guess) would disagree with you and say that your god doesn't deserve to
be worshipped.
And can do so knowing nothing of your god other than the fact that it desires to be worshipped.


Also "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is a quote of Carl Sagan, and it is far from
meaningless in any sense of the word.
It is a simple expression of the fact that if you claim something mundane, like you claim to be called
Suzianne for example, then it doesn't require much in the way of evidence or proof to be accepted,
as being called Suzianne is wholly unremarkable.
However claiming that you were wonder woman, and that you had super powers, and fly around in
an invisible aeroplane... Then you need to show proof sufficient to justify such extraordinary claims.

This is so uncontentious it is beyond dispute, and it means that for you to claim evidence for a god
which is about the most remarkable and extraordinary claim you can make requires evidence and proof
of a similar magnitude.
I couldn't even tell you what such evidence would look like, and only a being as powerful as a god could
produce it... which is the point.

Such proof doesn't exist. I know this because if it did it would be irrefutable and undeniable and
unmissable... how could evidence of god from god be anything less.

You yourself claim that no evidence for god exists, and that you have to believe in god on faith alone.

This is our dispute, and what you just saw on the linked website is a simple (trivial actually) logical and
reasoned argument for why it is impossible to rationally justify believing in god based on blind faith alone.

I say trivial, because contrary to your claiming the need for satanic assistance, the reasoning behind his
arguments is trivially simple and easy, and while it is well written, the logical reasoning barely takes a
minute to do if that.

Belief in a god or god's is logically and rationally unsupportable without evidence a (proof) of god to back it up.
Blind faith is rationally and logically unsupportable.

Which is what I keep saying, you have to abandon logic and reason to believe in god.

This has been known and demonstrated for centuries, if not millennia, the ancient Greeks cottoned on to
much of it.

With the advent of modern science explaining the once inexplicable that could be mistaken for the work of,
and evidence for, god. Completely destroying the illusion that there is any evidence for god, it simply comes
down to asking whether you are prepared to completely abandon logic and reason, and observation of reality,
so that you can believe in a cultural fairy tale, of no use or value.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You say you await my counter arguments. I have none. I am not like jaywill who could sit and whip out verse after verse to back up his argument. The logic of this website appears sound on the face of it, I assume even more so if you are atheist. But it is like comparing apples and oranges. The logic on this website is the logic of a man who was once Ch ...[text shortened]... ounds completely stupid to you. I'm sorry if I have disappointed you.

You sell yourself short... his arguments 'seem logical' because they are, that you can identify that shows that
you are indeed capable of following a good logical argument (unlike some I could mention on this site).
You can't refute his argument because his argument is irrefutable (unless you can prove gods existence).
His argument is logically sound and based on valid premises.

The motivation is simple, Skeptics, freethinkers, scientists, atheists... we all like the truth, as measured against
reality. Also theists persecute atheists, and theists of other religions or denominations.

Are you surprised that someone was prepared to go to the relatively speaking trivial amount of effort to consolidate
the arguments against pascals wager and present them in a simple website?

Can you really not think of any motive or drive that would allow that without invoking the work of satan? Seriously??
Because if so you really need to get out more and meet people, you know there are people who devote hours/months/weeks
to building modal railways, or collecting stamps, or worshipping imaginary friends... Debating and arguing is (as well as
being important) fun for many people, It's a way of exercising the mind, and creating that website took no superhuman effort.


Also the arguments are old, it's not like he was breaking new ground or making up the arguments himself.

I can't speak to your feelings, it can't be nice to see a well written argument that destroys a central pillar of your life and identity,
but the brain does all kinds of funny things, and so seeing satan in the work of someone who disagrees with you makes sense...
emotionally.

Rationally of course its totally ridiculous, and does indeed sound really stupid, however as I say believing in god requires the
suspension of reason and logic. And that bleeds over into everything else.

You haven't disappointed me (surprised for sure, I wasn't respecting that response, or your candour) and you have definitely given
me stuff to think about.

But satan is just as imaginary as god is (ie completely) and took no part in the creation of that website.

Also atheists don't hate god, we don't think it exists. However we do often hate stuff done in gods name, and what believing in god
does to people.
The fact that someone who comes across as decent and intelligent can get so mixed up as to see satanic influences in a simple
logical refutation of pascal is proof if proof were ever needed of the damage done by religion to the minds of those who adhere to it.

I am not disappointed in you or your response, I feel sorry for you, feeling afraid of hell, and 'satan' and 'his influence' is traumatic.
And one great benefit of being an Atheist, you don't have to worry about all that nonsense, because you realise it isn't real.

Children, children, pease stop this pointless bickering.

If it wasn't so childish it would be quite funny!

A, who has blind faith in x, will never persuade B, who has blind faith in y. EVER.

You join your particular club and pay the ritualistic subs of "The Chopping off of the Ears".

So, we're agreed:

Dasa believes in the Vedas - good on him.
Googlefudge is an atheist. - good on him
RJHinds is a Christian. - good on him
Suzianne is agnostic - good on her
Mikelom has a great sense of perspective - good on him
My aunt believes in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster - good on her.

Don't you get it? You will NEVER, EVER convert people to your faith by the "yes he is, no he isn't" line of argument.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Children, children, pease stop this pointless bickering.

If it wasn't so childish it would be quite funny!

A, who has blind faith in x, will never persuade B, who has blind faith in y. EVER.

You join your particular club and pay the ritualistic subs of "The Chopping off of the Ears".

So, we're agreed:

Dasa believes in the Vedas - good on hi ...[text shortened]... VER, EVER convert people to your faith by the "yes he is, no he isn't" line of argument.

Don't you get it? You will NEVER, EVER convert people to your faith by the "yes he is, no he isn't" line of argument.

I don't "get" what on earth you mean by "blind faith".

I feel the veil has been taken away and sight has been given to the eyes of my heart through faith in Christ.

It definitely is not "blind faith" but a faith full of confirmation, affirmation, and indication that I am on the right track.

Maybe as an outsider to our experience as born again Christians you have a "blind faith" about our experience.

I of course concur that the Gospel will probably not cause EVERYONE to believe into Christ. But face it, SOME will be converted from unbelief to belief in Christ.

And of course some will be persuaded to accept some other belief too.

Your attempts to be "above it all" and objectively aloof are appreciated. A magnanimus person can be constructive at times.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Children, children, please stop this pointless bickering.

If it wasn't so childish it would be quite funny!

A, who has blind faith in x, will never persuade B, who has blind faith in y. EVER.

You join your particular club and pay the ritualistic subs of "The Chopping off of the Ears".

So, we're agreed:

Dasa believes in the Vedas - good on h ...[text shortened]... VER, EVER convert people to your faith by the "yes he is, no he isn't" line of argument.

That isn't even remotely true, people can and do change their opinions based on arguments.
Not overnight, and seldom during the argument, but it can and does happen.
Both ways.

In some cases even the discovery that there are people who don't actually believe in god
and that you can actually question your beliefs is enough to start a process that can lead to
becoming an atheist.

I doubt anyone on this sight falls into that category, but arguing that people don't change
sides because of arguments about religion is manifestly false.

Also calling everyone children and talking about bickering is insulting to everyone in the
conversation.
If you don't like it, go some place else.

Originally posted by mikelom
Damn it! You are so funny, you nearly made me choke on my pork chop. I was just taking a big chunk when I scrolled to this post, and I nearly lost my gravy out the side of my mouth.
You gotta stop this comedy - izz juzz too much man! 😀 😀

Don't stop though - you're on a roll - keep 'em coming. Just don't make me choke on my beer or whatever meat I'm eating next time, pretty please. 😉

-m.

Mmm don't we love them pork chops on a braai (barbecue) and an ice cold beer - nothing wrong with that. Not to much beer though.

Originally posted by jaywill

Don't you get it? You will NEVER, EVER convert people to your faith by the "yes he is, no he isn't" line of argument.

I don't "get" what on earth you mean by "blind faith".

I feel the veil has been taken away and sight has been given to the eyes of my heart through faith in Christ.

It definitely is not "blind faith" but a faith f ...[text shortened]... ectively aloof are appreciated. A magnanimus person can be constructive at times.

It's blind in that it's faith in something for which you don't have evidence or proof
(regardless of how you 'feel'😉

You could argue that the blindness in that sense is included in the meaning of the word
faith itself, but including the word blind makes it clear.