Do you atheists feel safety and happiness when ...

[Balerion]

If you don't eat and don't breathe, how can you have any strength?

And if you do eat and breathe, how can you not acknowledge where you got your food and air from?

You're just being intentionally obtuse now. Strength in the sense Neverfly, Pete, and seagypsy were talking about is inner strength, as in strength of character. And that strength has nothing to do with eating or breathing, because there are plenty of starving people who have it and plenty of well-fed people who don't.

But you're not making this a gastrointestinal issue out of genuine interest, you're just trying to stir crap. Stop it already.

 

[Syne]

A foxhole can safely be assumed to imply the totality of a battlefield experience. This includes the possibility of seeing fellow solders gravely injured and killed, and with such definitely includes a probability for personal injury or death.

No any one thing can be assumed to imply the totality. Most of my own experiences were not in a foxhole.
I've been in combat and earned my cav sandwich. Have you?
That statement from you was sufficient to be a bit insulting to those who've been there.
Since you like pointing out Fallacies, allow me to add Dicto simpliciter to your list, here.

Are you deficient? You just quoted a post I made to JDawg about being naively literal, and you've just gone right ahead and demonstrated the exact same naivete. I didn't say that the totality of a battlefield experience is encapsulated in a foxhole, I said that a foxhole implies the totality of a battlefield experience. This includes aspects completely removed from any literal foxhole. The only implication of a foxhole is threat of death in battle.

Can you comprehend that?

Do you even understand what a dicto simpliciter is? So far no one has provided any evidence of an exception other than admitted anecdote. Care to rectify that?

(1) I never said that being in a foxhole was not sufficiently life-threatening, and this is a straw man. What I said was that permanent injury is sufficient proof of immediately life-threatening experience, you know, beyond mere testimony (why would atheists start relying solely on testimony now?).

(2) I haven't insinuated a thing, and yes, I always have a reason for asking a question. I had hoped to get some answer that actually addressed the question. Instead I get empty assertions:

If uncertainty over how your posts are intended bothers you, I'd suggest that you make a clear stand and defend that stance.

Do you even read what you write? How can a person be "uncertain" of their own "intent"? If they do not know their intent then there is definitively no intent.

I've made a clear statement, but it seems to be completely beyond you. Here, let's try again:

A picture of apparently healthy men standing around a sign reading "atheists in foxholes" doesn't seem sufficient evidence that atheists remain so under imminent threat of death.

But if this constitutes "seeing is believing" or "sufficient testimony" for you, you're welcome to it. Just try to find some other way to differentiate yourself from theists.

 

[Neverfly]

Are you deficient? You just quoted a post I made to JDawg about being naively literal, and you've just gone right ahead and demonstrated the exact same naivete. I didn't say that the totality of a battlefield experience is encapsulated in a foxhole, I said that a foxhole implies the totality of a battlefield experience. This includes aspects completely removed from any literal foxhole. The only implication of a foxhole is threat of death in battle.

Can you comprehend that?

Can you comprehend that you are making assumptions of which I believe you have no idea what you're talking about?
Syne, instead of slinging ad hom questions, try adjusting your tactic considering that you must accept that without the experience, you do not know what you are talking about in that regard.
I'm well aware you posted to JDawg. I'm not limited in only responded to direct quotes to me.

Do you even understand what a dicto simpliciter is? So far no one has provided any evidence of an exception other than admitted anecdote. Care to rectify that?

It is a sweeping generalization.
To imply a foxhole to a sweeping generalization of war or combat experience most definitely applies.

Do you even read what you write? How can a person be "uncertain" of their own "intent"? If they do not know their intent then there is definitively no intent.

What it means is, make a case and support it. If you don't like vague assertions questioned, be wary of being vague.

I've made a clear statement, but it seems to be completely beyond you. Here, let's try again:

A picture of apparently healthy men standing around a sign reading "atheists in foxholes" doesn't seem sufficient evidence that atheists remain so under imminent threat of death.

But if this constitutes "seeing is believing" or "sufficient testimony" for you, you're welcome to it. Just try to find some other way to differentiate yourself from theists.

I agree with your point.
However, I've also pointed out that busted up battle scarred veterans do not carry any more credibility. It shows that they experienced combat but cannot vouch for their personal beliefs at any time.

 

[seagypsy]

.
If uncertainty over how your posts are intended bothers you, I'd suggest that you make a clear stand and defend that stance.

Do you even read what you write? How can a person be "uncertain" of their own "intent"? If they do not know their intent then there is definitively no intent.

I think it is pretty clear that he did not say he was uncertain of his own intent.

I will reword what he said so that maybe it is easier for you to understand, or at least less easy for you to twist.

what he meant:

If it bothers you that readers are uncertain of your intentions in your posts, perhaps you should be more clear what your stance is and then stand by it unless you are willing or able to concede a point.

Well that is how I took Neverfly's statement, anyone else want to weigh in?

 

[AlexG]

A picture of apparently healthy men standing around a sign reading "atheists in foxholes" doesn't seem sufficient evidence that atheists remain so under imminent threat of death.

As I understand it, the picture was taken in Fallujah. That seems suffiecient evidence that the were daily in harms way. BTW, until they're shot or blown up, all US soldiers are apparently healthy men.

 

[seagypsy]

syne, a person can face death without losing limbs. Also not all injuries are physical. PTSD is very real and affects a great number of battle worn soldiers. Regardless of their views on religion. It is also very debilitating for some.

On the other hand, missing limbs do not necessarily indicate having faced a harrowing life threatening experience. You can lose limbs to infection. My step dad was in Vietnam and he told me of guys who lost their feet to jungle rot. Guys who lost feet before ever having to have fired a shot.

Anecdotal, yes, but unless you are prepared to call war veterans liars then think twice before acting as if you are privileged to some higher knowledge of the specifics in regards to who was atheist when the shit hit the fan.

 

[wynn]

You're just being intentionally obtuse now. Strength in the sense Neverfly, Pete, and seagypsy were talking about is inner strength, as in strength of character. And that strength has nothing to do with eating or breathing, because there are plenty of starving people who have it and plenty of well-fed people who don't.

But you're not making this a gastrointestinal issue out of genuine interest, you're just trying to stir crap. Stop it already.

Nonsense.

I am just trying to get your camp to acknowledge that a human is not independent, and as such, cannot be his or her own source of strength.
Be that strength of character or physical strength or any other kind of strength.

Anyone who possesses "strength of character" wasn't simply born that way, but developed it with the help of many other people and other circumstances.

 

[wynn]

Praying in a foxhole does not indicate faith in said prayer. It indicates hope. They are hoping that they have been wrong and that God will help them. It does not mean that they believe that he will. But in desperation when one believes they are about to die, what do they have to lose in asking for help of something they never believed in.

I'm atheist and I pray every time I play the lottery. Sometimes I even check my horoscope. The occasional giving in to whimsical fancy in no way creates a reality. Sometimes humans just delude themselves because it makes them feel good. My reading a horoscope or praying for a winning lottery ticket in no way indicates sincere belief in either astrology or god. I know even as I take part in these things that they are baseless and pointless. Only the lottery ticket stands any chance of being a good bet and what are the odds of actually winning?If I actually believed that stuff I would be terribly disappointed when they failed me.At the very least, I would be surprised.

Also the proclaimed faith of a so called believer does not in fact indicate true faith. Being willing to put ones faith to a test does. Unfortunately, like this wanna be snake charmer, testing one's faith usually proves unwise. Though he passed the test of his faith, it would appear that his god did not.

Depends on the atheist.

In my humble opinion (i.e. I speak only for myself), I believe that it is human nature to wish for a higher power (that is not to say all do, I'm simply asserting that it is human nature, like sleeping when you're tired). Even an atheist might call for his mommy when lost in the woods. I believe this is what drives the belief in God in humanity.

However, human nature != truth.

Because a human wants to believe there is a higher power does not mean there is one.

Even when the weakest atheist who, when the chips are down, prays for rescue, does not actually bring into existence something that does not exist.

Atheists merely recognize that reality does not conform to the needs of human nature.

I wonder how many believers, when they sustain a crippling injury or devastating bereavement, when their fervent prayers for deliverance are answered by redoubled suffering, lose their faith. I imagine the evidence for this happening would be as anecdotal as for the reverse.

Those are some mighty strange views of theism.

It seems you think that belief in God is essentially a matter of believing in a divine, all-powerful vending machine.

 

[Neverfly]

I am just trying to get your camp to acknowledge that a human is not independent, and as such, cannot be his or her own source of strength.
Be that strength of character or physical strength or any other kind of strength.

If you want it acknowledged, you must present a good and strong case for it. Not accept it as fact all by yourself and demand that others agree with you.

 

[Balerion]

Nonsense.

I am just trying to get your camp to acknowledge that a human is not independent, and as such, cannot be his or her own source of strength.
Be that strength of character or physical strength or any other kind of strength.

You're simply projecting your own weaknesses on everyone else, as usual. Just because you can't get by without help doesn't mean that no one can.

Anyone who possesses "strength of character" wasn't simply born that way, but developed it with the help of many other people and other circumstances.

Or they developed it in spite of having no one. I have a friend who was raped by her stepfather for most of her teenage years. Her mother ignored it, and she was afraid to ask for help from anyone else. She survived that ordeal alone, and lost her family as a result. The strength she developed from that disaster came from her own determination to not let it kill her and subsequently to not let it define her.

The fact that you need a crutch only implies that you aren't as strong as she is.

 

[seagypsy]

Nonsense.

I am just trying to get your camp to acknowledge that a human is not independent, and as such, cannot be his or her own source of strength.
Be that strength of character or physical strength or any other kind of strength.

Anyone who possesses "strength of character" wasn't simply born that way, but developed it with the help of many other people and other circumstances.

Not one of us has said we are totally independent. We have only asserted that we do not depend on any god. Sure we depend on other people. We may even depend on inanimate objects. That does not mean we have to depend on any god.

 

[wynn]

If you want it acknowledged, you must present a good and strong case for it. Not accept it as fact all by yourself and demand that others agree with you.

If you think you can get by without eating and air ...

 

[wynn]

Not one of us has said we are totally independent. We have only asserted that we do not depend on any god. Sure we depend on other people. We may even depend on inanimate objects. That does not mean we have to depend on any god.

Given the usual definitions of God (such as God being the Source of All, the Creator, Controller and Maintainer of the Universe), you do depend on God, and cannot unilaterally assert independence of God.

You may not acknowledge this dependence, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist, at least as far as definitions go.


When you say "we do not depend on any god" what do you mean by "god" here?

 

[Neverfly]

If you think you can get by without eating and air ...

Do food and air give me emotional strength?

 

[wynn]

You're simply projecting your own weaknesses on everyone else, as usual. Just because you can't get by without help doesn't mean that no one can.



Or they developed it in spite of having no one. I have a friend who was raped by her stepfather for most of her teenage years. Her mother ignored it, and she was afraid to ask for help from anyone else. She survived that ordeal alone, and lost her family as a result. The strength she developed from that disaster came from her own determination to not let it kill her and subsequently to not let it define her.

The fact that you need a crutch only implies that you aren't as strong as she is.

You just never miss an opportunity to put me down, do you ...

:bugeye:

 

[wynn]

Do food and air give me emotional strength?

Can you have any strength without them?

 

[wynn]

TO THE OP:

When I am in a danger or in such a situation that there is no one to help me or when all the circumstances are to my opposition, even then I feel a strength in my heart. I feel my God is with me as I am in truth. In such a situation what is the feelings of a atheist?

Are you here to brag?

 

[Neverfly]

Can you have any strength without them?

Define: Strength

 

[Balerion]

You just never miss an opportunity to put me down, do you ...

:bugeye:

Don't be a troll, Wynn. If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

 

[Syne]

Irrelevant. You asked, presumably, because you do not know. I also do not know.
Just because you asked does not mean that you suddenly know and can make assertions. You are assuming.

I ask because there is sufficient objectively verifiable evidence for the statement that there are theists in foxholes but not such for the statement that there are atheists in foxholes. I've made no assertions other than this fact that you seem to have already admitted to being incapable of refuting.

Irrelevant.
The issue discussed was not one of statistics. It was not one of how many are there: It was a statement which read, "There are no atheists in foxholes."
Key word: No. The statement means that any one, any person, in that situation, will suddenly believe in something divine.
So statistics are irrelevant.

So far, no one has provided any solid evidence that there is even one. No need for statistics there.

I have pointed out that anecdotal is about all you're going to get for now.

Deal with it.

Since that's how it is, consider the issue stalemated until evidence is found or provided. Yapping back and forth about it is boring.

And I've pointed out there there is ample objectively verifiable evidence that there are theists in foxholes while, so far, none for atheists. I have no problem dealing with the anecdotal when compared to verifiable fact. If you can deal with it as well, then by all means, feel free to quit this "boring" exchange.

But no, anecdote versus evidence is no real stalemate...unless you argue like a typical theist.

Again with the straw man arguments. I never said, nor implied, that physical injury was in any way evidence for any personal belief. Nor did I say anything even remotely assuming debilitating injury must accompany an experience of imminent death.

Try reading the above bolded portion again. Rinse and repeat until you have some clue.

Incorrect.

You stated that you would accept a person who did have serious injury or disability as not anecdotal and as solid evidence. It only demonstrates that they have had a harrowing experience and that demonstrates that alone, not whether or not they are honest about personal beliefs.

Where have I said anything about serious injury demonstrating ANYTHING about honesty? I've already addressed the issue of honesty separately. You've yet to provide any rationale that would reduce the self-reported cases of atheism in such cases. Quite the opposite, you've speculated on the likelihood of dishonesty increasing the number of self-reported atheists:

Ah, but that's not the issue...
The issue is would an atheist, turn theist in grievous circumstances- but deny that out of embarrassment later? I mean, here he was claiming all that time there is no God to suddenly find him in a crater?
Doesn't sound like something someone would want to admit to.

I did not say not imply that you said or implied at any time that personal injury demonstrates personal beliefs.
I pointed out the fallacy of accepting that as Solid Evidence.

Try to keep up, Syne.

Then what exactly were you addressing here?

Physical injury is not valid as evidence about personal beliefs, Syne.

Seems you were correcting me for a straw man you erected, and are now subsequently and dishonestly denying. No matter what your cognitive bias is inserting into your reading of my posts, I have never positively associated belief with physical injury. I have only associated physical injury with life-threatening experience.

It is obviously you who is falling woefully behind.

Are you deficient? You just quoted a post I made to JDawg about being naively literal, and you've just gone right ahead and demonstrated the exact same naivete. I didn't say that the totality of a battlefield experience is encapsulated in a foxhole, I said that a foxhole implies the totality of a battlefield experience. This includes aspects completely removed from any literal foxhole. The only implication of a foxhole is threat of death in battle.

Can you comprehend that?

Can you comprehend that you are making assumptions of which I believe you have no idea what you're talking about?
Syne, instead of slinging ad hom questions, try adjusting your tactic considering that you must accept that without the experience, you do not know what you are talking about in that regard.
I'm well aware you posted to JDawg. I'm not limited in only responded to direct quotes to me.

Wait a second...let me get out my deficient decoder. So you're actually going to try to say that you are assuming that I am making assumptions? That's a laughably dubious statement.

Oh, so you do want to rely solely upon testimony. Is that acceptable criteria for fact to you?


I must need to type slower for you. I didn't question you replying to my response to JDawg, only that you made the exact same mistake in doing so that my response just criticized JDawg for making.

It is a sweeping generalization.
To imply a foxhole to a sweeping generalization of war or combat experience most definitely applies.

Like I told JDawg, and you apparently completely missed, if you take "foxhole" so naively literal then the whole meme becomes entirely pointless. A foxhole is cover from enemy fire. Are you in a battle or take cover if you are not taking fire, or in threat thereof?

What it means is, make a case and support it. If you don't like vague assertions questioned, be wary of being vague.

I assure you, the only vagueness here is inferred by your comprehension.

I agree with your point.
However, I've also pointed out that busted up battle scarred veterans do not carry any more credibility. It shows that they experienced combat but cannot vouch for their personal beliefs at any time.

You've only given reason to assume atheists would lie about any deviation from their view under stress. How does lying to increase their number, "in foxholes", make them any less evident?

I think it is pretty clear that he did not say he was uncertain of his own intent.

I will reword what he said so that maybe it is easier for you to understand, or at least less easy for you to twist.

what he meant:

If it bothers you that readers are uncertain of your intentions in your posts, perhaps you should be more clear what your stance is and then stand by it unless you are willing or able to concede a point.

Well that is how I took Neverfly's statement, anyone else want to weigh in?

No, I understood the intent just fine. I just thought is rather ironic to question his vague intent, no doubt due to unintended wording, of questioning my intent.