Hitchens' Death Will be Closely Watched

Forgiveness requires reopentence and humbleness. You ask for it, only God gives grace.

 

Callimg that vitriol "politely" is a looong stretch, dude.
And Robots has admonished me for mirroring your "athtards" with the term "Christards" - but he already pointed this out to you in #171, have you actually read what you reply to?

 

I think our colleague Neutral suffers from selective amnesia.

 

When I was 19 I used the word "retard" pretty often. I try not to now because I know its a hurtful word to some and choose not to use it. At that age I also was a Christian and believed in God. That was before obtaining higher education, taking classes and learning about other religions (and much more about Christianity) and history, and science (M.S. in biology). That was before reading the entire Bible for myself and forming my own opinions and seeing all of the flaws and contradictions and how little sense a lot of it makes. Until grade 9 I went to a Lutheran school and what I knew of the Bible and Christianity was what my teachers and pastors told me, what they chose to teach and their spin on what in means. I thought some of the same things you did before all of my life experience.

So by your logic it is safe to assume you must be much younger then I am, and it would be okay for me to call you "kiddo" and talk to you in a condescending tone. Implying that your views are childish and immature. Maybe I should also point to all of the studies that show that atheist and agnostics tend, in general, to have higher IQs than the religious and imply that because I'm an atheist, I must be smarter. But that would simply be wrong and it has nothing to do with the debate. Just because someone has a different world view then you, does not mean you can imply anything like that. Peoples views and opinions do change as they age but that doesn't always mean they change for the better or that their views mature. Often it does, other times it doesn't. Their are many people much older than you and I that are not as smart, just as I'm sure there are plenty of younger people that are smarter than either of us.

I will however defend your right to use whatever words you want because I believe in free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want. That doesn't mean it is right or that you should though. People have the right to free speech, not to be protected from being offended. I understand where Bow To The Robots is coming from, but sometime you just have to ignore things like that and let it go.

 

We have no say in the matter, to build an argument for religion based off it is stupid.

It would not be devastating to me. Why are you so scared of atheists?

OK, this is just paranoia or two many prescription drugs.

 

No. Actually no one will give a (*)(*)(*)(*). Well, a bunch of desparate people will. The rest of us will continue as normal and so long as science doesn't revert to the dark ages, atheism will continue to gain traction.

 

So you want evidence that an Atheist doesn't convert on his/her death bed, but you accept with blind faith the principles of god and jesus?

WOW!

 

And we want proof that god exists. The irony of your posts is really building up now.

 

I will write the Pope a letter and demand he make the facts of jesus' death and subsequent rebirth public, and if he refuses this demand I will take as evidence that he has no evidence of Christianity.

 

No, that would be religion. First the jewish faith, then christianity, then islam. I mean, can't you guys agree on anything?

 

It's called the Bible. Its withstood 2,000 years of often doltish cirtiques. Let me know anything in atheism that has withstood such repeated attempts to rip it apart.

How can you claim to be evidenced based when Biblical creation process, the church canon, conforms to the most rigorous academic standards even today. Even though authorship is in doubt, no academic makes a serious or sustained case that the Bible is inaccurate in it presentation.

Yet here you sit demanding what has been on the record for nearly two millenia?

 

And yet you present absolutely no evidence, and as we see above, actively avoid it when presenting it. hmmm ...

How about you actually demonstrate some of that higher reasoning ability and make a case rather than a series of one liner declarations that state what everyone already knows: you are an atheist and you disagree (really, you don;t have to be a jerk to disagree), and then do what most atheists don't do - and make a reasonable, logic based case devoid of insults and magical apparations like magic floating tea pots?

If you can that is .... which should be possible as those guided solely by science and logic.

 

Hmm, he's asking for proof - how could one accuse the enquirer of not presenting evidence? Of what exactly?

Tsk, tsk, theist "logic", I suppose: it commands them to answer questions with accusations, it seems.

 

How can you claim to have a scientific, evidenced based position without any evidence.

If you think there is really no God, and its based on science, it should be, as you explain repeatedly, testable and falsifiable. Atheism is not.

If it is, kindly prove it. One side openly acknowledges the logical requirement of faith - as the evidence is inconclusive - the other? Well, we keep seeing you guys preach science and when the time comes to back up YOUR claims ... well, you aren't claimng anything at all, have no burden of proof, or any damb excuse to deny the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever.

Its called a simple double standard.

If evidence drives you, and then it is confined to ONLY scientific evidence, it leads straight to agnosticism - not atheism.

Notice the complete lack of atheist 'logic'? Everyone else does too.

 

The guy asked for proof of your god. lol

That's a muddled misconception: I have explained, at nauseum, that the claim "a god exists" falls outside the territory of science.

Of course atheism is not "testable" either, what an absurd spiel to propose the absence of belief is somehow invalid because it can not be scientifically tested to be true.

See above, and btw, please note the topic title, there are several threads where this has been discussed at nauseum.

No, it's not.
It's called missing the point.

??? Another absurdity.

No, and no.

What I notice, is a lot of anger, misconceptions and strawmen burning at the stakes of religionist rhetoric.

 

It is ironic, isn't it? People of faith demanding evidence.

Rational person: "prove that God exists."

Person of faith: "prove he doesn't."

Rational person: "the burden of proof rests with the party of the affirmative."

Person of faith: "I have faith that God exists."

Rational person: "that is not proof."

Person of faith: "yes it is."

 

Rational person: "prove that God exists."

Irate religionist: "you're irrational and illogical, you are not providing evidence that He doesn't exist!"

 

After translation:


person who makes excuses: "prove that God exists."

Person of faith: "prove he doesn't."

person who makes excuses: "the burden of proof rests with the party of the affirmative."

Person of faith: "I have faith that God exists."

person who makes excuses: "that is not proof."

Person of faith: "yes it is."

 

Which excuses does a person who asks for proof of a god make?

 

Any that they can conjure in their minds that will satisfy their little ego mania delusion that denies the existence of a God or gods.

 

I will be converting to Christianity on my death bed, you can rest assured. I intend to free the slaves of Yahowah from their bleak imprisonment in His citadel Heaven.

Shocking how anxious you Christians are to make yourself slaves for all eternity. If you only knew what fate truly awaits you for accepting Yahowah as your Lord. There is no guarantee that I will succeed. I may be stuck in Heaven for all eternity, but this is a chance I am willing to take. I will do what I can to free those souls from His oppressive hand.

Yahowah is old and weak. He has never seen the type of power I possess. His days are numbered.

MY death is the death you should watch closely, Christians. Give me a week up there and the whole craphouse is going to come crashing down.

I will march the streets of Earth with Yahowah's head impaled upon my staff.

Children will line the sidewalks singing of the death of Yahowah.

Oh, you're a vengeful God are you, Yahowah? You've seen NOTHING YET. Your arrogance will be Your downfall.

And Your blind stupidity will allow me, Your destroyer, to enter the gates of Heaven even after the outrageous sins I have committed my entire life and will continue to commit until I am right at death's door.

Your day of reckoning is at hand, Yahowah. Creating me was the biggest mistake of your eternity, which ends soon.

 

If I understand your post correctly you are suggesting that the historicity of the bible is not in doubt within academia. I believe the historical accuracy and authorship of the bible is is a significant topic of academic debate. Both the historicity and authorship of biblical texts are hotly contested academic subjects. Discourse on the historical accuracy the Bible is far from uniform. Biblical Minimalism, Biblical Maximalism and a non-historical interpretation of the bible are all relevant academic schools of thought pertaining to the historicity of the bible.

Personally, I don't think that the authorship or historical accuracy of the texts are of dire importance to the practice of christianity... but thats just me....

 

And how many times does this have to be provided?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

Now, where is your evidence that there is no God? The places you have checked where there should be something but is not?

Non-existant.

So, you guys always ask for evidence, claim that evidence drives you, and it is clear you have ... nothing.

So does his non-existance - by the same standards you use.

Is this hard? Living and judging by YOUR OWN STANDARDS? Apparently.

Agh, but everyone else's belief are?

Nice double standard.

BTW - the way ligic works, once someone demonstrates that there is plausibility to their beliefs, screaming about proof and doing nothing but deny without proof or rebuttal is fndamentally illogical.

So, when you guys ram rod it down people's throat, its right on target. When someone rebuts - well, now it is off topic?

Notice the double standard again?

The idea thay inconclusive evidence leads to inconclusive result is absurd to you? Yep, that is atheism.

Nice rebuttal, the super victim cape comes out again. We're not wrong, everyone hates us - let me tell you how atheists have it worse than slaves!

Try a rebuttal rather than an insult for a change.

 

How many times do atheist have to pull an ostrich.

What is this? 50 times now and not a single atheist rebuttal?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

The logic of atheism, ask for and get - pretend you never got it. And last time you pulled this you accused me of simply being an anti-atheist bigot?

Yet here you are lecturing derisively about the exact same demand for evidence.

That is pretty pathetic for those who claim to be driven by logic.

 

Set a new standard and provide objective, empirical evidence for this assertion.

Otherwise, it falls into the category of subjective, spurious speculation driven by emotional bias.