Do you atheists feel safety and happiness when ...

[seagypsy]

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?

The existence of definitions for something does not make it real. One can define what a vampire is too. That does not make a vampire real. So stop trying to create reality where there is none. I am not bound by the restrictions of theist definitions. definitions are just ideas, not realities.

I really don't think you are dumb, so please do not continue making yourself appear to be so. Its depressing.

 

[Syne]

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.

If you take it as sufficiently objective evidence, then so be it. My criteria is just more rigorous than yours.

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.

I never said a person couldn't "face death without losing limbs". Can't anyone around here post without erecting a straw man argument? Infection is not the sort of injury that people typically consider to be imminently life threatening, at least not in the magnitude of sudden massive bodily damage. PTSD is hardly physically, objective evidence for an imminently life-threatening experience.

And if you've been paying any attention, it has been Neverfly who has been calling veterans liars, not me. I don't see any reason to question what they may self-report their view to be in the given moment. And even with that concession, no one has yet provided any necessarily compelling evidence.

 

[Neverfly]

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.

maybe you should make assertions and stop complaining about you not having made them. I said this once, already.
Let us know where you stand.
Simple.

So far, no one has provided any solid evidence that there is even one.

Agreed. Nor is there any solid evidence that there are none.
As it is, neither side can demonstrate either way.

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:

I have pointed out, this will be the third time, that whether they have war wounds or not is irrelevant. The rest of your post rides on you complaining that you haven't made assertions. For the forth time here: Make an assertion and support it or do not bother.
By asking for solid evidence of war wounds, you DO, repeat DO assert that it is therefor, "More acceptable" as evidence that they were, in fact, "atheists in foxholes."
There is no worming out of that. You're arguing in circles, now.

No one cares to sit on the fence next to you and deal with you making suggestions and then complaining about not making assertions.

Make an assertion; Defend that assertion.
Simple.
That's five times now.

 

[Balerion]

If you take it as sufficiently objective evidence, then so be it. My criteria is just more rigorous than yours.

No, it's just that you won't believe that atheists exist in foxholes, so you'll piss on any evidence that refutes your belief.

Those pictured aren't the only atheists serving in our military, obviously. There are plenty who have been under fire.

 

[seagypsy]

If you take it as sufficiently objective evidence, then so be it. My criteria is just more rigorous than yours.



I never said a person couldn't "face death without losing limbs". Can't anyone around here post without erecting a straw man argument? Infection is not the sort of injury that people typically consider to be imminently life threatening, at least not in the magnitude of sudden massive bodily damage. PTSD is hardly physically, objective evidence for an imminently life-threatening experience.

And if you've been paying any attention, it has been Neverfly who has been calling veterans liars, not me. I don't see any reason to question what they may self-report their view to be in the given moment. And even with that concession, no one has yet provided any necessarily compelling evidence.

Ok Syne, it is obvious that you simply CHOOSE not to comprehend what people post. You have totally reversed what I said. But this is your choice. You now join the ranks of those who post for the sake of arguing and nothing more. Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm wondering if I was hasty in throwing JDawg on that list. Many times before I put him on ignore, I observed JDawg behaving civilized and not making things up and twisting others posts. At least not consistently. He didn't extend that courtesy to me but maybe I inadvertently pushed a button with him or maybe he was having a bad day. But you and wynn consistently twist the posts of others to suit how you want their posts to appear. Either it is pure intellectual dishonesty, or you simply do not have the reading comprehension level to hold your head above water on this forum. It is sad, really really sad, such great minds being used for utter waste.

 

[Balerion]

Ok Syne, it is obvious that you simply CHOOSE not to comprehend what people post. You have totally reversed what I said. But this is your choice. You now join the ranks of those who post for the sake of arguing and nothing more. Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm wondering if I was hasty in throwing JDawg on that list. Many times before I put him on ignore, I observed JDawg behaving civilized and not making things up and twisting others posts. At least not consistently. He didn't extend that courtesy to me but maybe I inadvertently pushed a button with him or maybe he was having a bad day. But you and wynn consistently twist the posts of others to suit how you want their posts to appear. Either it is pure intellectual dishonesty, or you simply do not have the reading comprehension level to hold your head above water on this forum. It is sad, really really sad, such great minds being used for utter waste.

I didn't twist anything you said. It happens that you were wrong. No need to make it personal, no need to disparage others for pointing it out.

 

[Syne]

maybe you should make assertions and stop complaining about you not having made them. I said this once, already.
Let us know where you stand.
Simple.

Are you dense, forgetful, or just dishonest?

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.

I agree with your point.

Stated, restated, and apparently agreed with.

Agreed. Nor is there any solid evidence that there are none.
As it is, neither side can demonstrate either way.

This is exactly the same argument that theists typically make for the existence of a god. Shall I give you the cliche atheist response?

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

I've already demonstrated evidence for the presence of theists in foxholes. Come on, atheists are suppose to be highly objective and rational. Wait...you're not a theist concern troll are you?

I have pointed out, this will be the third time, that whether they have war wounds or not is irrelevant.

Of course it is irrelevant to you...you have your confirmation bias, just as a theist has his faith, to dismiss any discrepancy in evidence.

The rest of your post rides on you complaining that you haven't made assertions. For the forth time here: Make an assertion and support it or do not bother.
By asking for solid evidence of war wounds, you DO, repeat DO assert that it is therefor, "More acceptable" as evidence that they were, in fact, "atheists in foxholes."
There is no worming out of that. You're arguing in circles, now.

I've corrected you many times now on this same tired straw man of yours. I've never even implied that "wounds" were evidence of "atheists in foxholes". This straw man will be no more true the next hundred times you repeat it.

Permanently disabling wounds received as a direct result of combat are evidence of an experience of imminent threat of death. Nothing more, no matter how desperately you try to make your fiction stick.

I fully accept self-reported views of atheism in such situations at face value. It is only you who has questioned the honesty of veterans and resorted to theist and outright dishonest arguments.

No one cares to sit on the fence next to you and deal with you making suggestions and then complaining about not making assertions.

Make an assertion; Defend that assertion.
Simple.
That's five times now.

Why don't you just go ahead and count fifty more times in the same post? Especially when my statement, whether in question form or not, has been clear the whole time.

No, it's just that you won't believe that atheists exist in foxholes, so you'll piss on any evidence that refutes your belief.

Those pictured aren't the only atheists serving in our military, obviously. There are plenty who have been under fire.

What evidence? I've been asking for any and getting nothing but theist-like unsupported assertions. I've also made my criteria very clear, so there should be no dispute over what is acceptable evidence.

When is an atheist here going to start behaving as they claim their ideals require?​

 

[Syne]

syne, a person can face death without losing limbs [1]. Also not all injuries are physical.[2] 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.[2] 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[3] 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.

[1]I never said a person couldn't "face death without losing limbs". Can't anyone around here post without erecting a straw man argument? Infection is [2]not the sort of injury that people typically consider to be imminently life threatening, at least not in the magnitude of sudden massive bodily damage. PTSD is hardly physically, objective evidence for an imminently life-threatening experience.

And if you've been paying any attention, [3]it has been Neverfly who has been calling veterans liars, not me. I don't see any reason to question what they may self-report their view to be in the given moment. And even with that concession, no one has yet provided any necessarily compelling evidence.

Ok Syne, it is obvious that you simply CHOOSE not to comprehend what people post. You have totally reversed what I said. But this is your choice. You now join the ranks of those who post for the sake of arguing and nothing more. Welcome to my ignore list.

...But you and wynn consistently twist the posts of others to suit how you want their posts to appear. Either it is pure intellectual dishonesty, or you simply do not have the reading comprehension level to hold your head above water on this forum. It is sad, really really sad, such great minds being used for utter waste.

Where, exactly, is this supposed reversing of what you said?

All I see here is a huge unsupported ad hominem. Where is this supposed twisting of your above post? Be specific with your wild accusations.

Or just ignore what you cannot hope to rebut.

 

[Neverfly]

All I see here is a huge unsupported ad hominem.

Pot, meet kettle.

Are you dense, forgetful, or just dishonest?

Instead of veiling ad homs as questions, you could have Stated Your Position, instead.
Are you going to make any assertions to support?

This is exactly the same argument that theists typically make for the existence of a god. Shall I give you the cliche atheist response?

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

I've already demonstrated evidence for the presence of theists in foxholes. Come on, atheists are suppose to be highly objective and rational. Wait...you're not a theist concern troll are you?

No.
There is a complete absence of evidence of God. It's a totality.
In this case, you nor I have access to evidence that you will abide by to support the conclusion of whether there are atheists that remain atheists even in dire circumstances. That there is physical evidence in existence is very plausible.
However, you nor I can access medical records of soldiers to satisfy you, with psych profiles.
That there is physical evidence in existence of a creator is not plausible, given the overwhelming evidence against it. We do have access, freely, to that evidence. In abundance.

Syne, you like to play on words, thinking you are clever. But you are not. You are not seeking truth, you are pushing an agenda and doing so rudely while manipulating wording.

I do not care, at this point, if you wave your arms and cry foul because of what I just said. Feel free to.

Of course it is irrelevant to you...you have your confirmation bias, just as a theist has his faith, to dismiss any discrepancy in evidence.

No. This is a clear distortion, for someone who asks if I am dense, dishonest, and now claiming confirmation bias.
It is because evidence of physical injury does not demonstrate their "Spiritual state," nor does it demonstrate that they were, in fact, in life threatening combat situations. It demonstrates that their body took damage. It does not validate nor invalidate what beliefs they may or may not hold.
It is a straw man and I will not continue repeating myself to refute it.

I've corrected you many times now on this same tired straw man of yours. I've never even implied that "wounds" were evidence of "atheists in foxholes". This straw man will be no more true the next hundred times you repeat it.

Very well: State your reason for raising the issue, then. YOU did raise the issue. You DID state that was a source of Solid evidence, did you not? Solid evidence of What? What does it, as solid evidence support? No excuses:
State it clearly as an assertion and its purpose.
Refusal to do so will demonstrate that you are trolling.

 

[wynn]

The existence of definitions for something does not make it real. One can define what a vampire is too. That does not make a vampire real. So stop trying to create reality where there is none. I am not bound by the restrictions of theist definitions. definitions are just ideas, not realities.

I really don't think you are dumb, so please do not continue making yourself appear to be so. Its depressing.

Strawman.

You claim you don't need "any gods," I remind you of the usual definitions of "God" and require you to post your own - and you refuse to do so.


:shrug:

 

[sigurdV]

Hi all!

What is meant by "foxhole" and what (if anything) is going on in here?

What lines have formed? Are all types of ideology represented?

 

[Syne]

Instead of veiling ad homs as questions, you could have Stated Your Position, instead.
Are you going to make any assertions to support?

My question is whether there are any permanently disabled veterans coming out of those foxholes. I notice all of these guys still have all their limbs. There are widely differing levels of threat of death, with permanently disabling wounds definitely being much closer.

I am merely questioning its validity, as it may constitute cherry-picking or be entirely unrepresentative (as being in the military doesn't ensure life-threatening experience).

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.

This last quote I've even repeated several times. You initially agreed with it, then you very troll-like waited for me to neglect to remind you of it so you could demand a statement twice in the same post, both of which you counted even without any opportunity to respond with the same quote I'd already repeated once.

So this is now the fifth time I've directly answered your trolling demand, which you will no doubt continue to feint ignorance of regardless of your initial agreement.

This is exactly the same argument that theists typically make for the existence of a god. Shall I give you the cliche atheist response?

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

I've already demonstrated evidence for the presence of theists in foxholes. Come on, atheists are suppose to be highly objective and rational. Wait...you're not a theist concern troll are you?

No.
There is a complete absence of evidence of God. It's a totality.
In this case, you nor I have access to evidence that you will abide by to support the conclusion of whether there are atheists that remain atheists even in dire circumstances. That there is physical evidence in existence is very plausible.
However, you nor I can access medical records of soldiers to satisfy you, with psych profiles.
That there is physical evidence in existence of a creator is not plausible, given the overwhelming evidence against it. We do have access, freely, to that evidence. In abundance.

You still sound just like a theist. A theist would say that you, as an atheist, simply don't have access to the abundant evidence for a god because you are not open to the evidence which exists everywhere. Same confirmation bias at work in both cases.

Only objective evidence can differentiate the two, which is usually where atheists make a strong argument. Sadly you are lacking any in this case, and are forced to resort to vacuous assertions, dishonest troll tactics, and fallacies.

Syne, you like to play on words, thinking you are clever. But you are not. You are not seeking truth, you are pushing an agenda and doing so rudely while manipulating wording.

I do not care, at this point, if you wave your arms and cry foul because of what I just said. Feel free to.

What play on words? Simple-minded people often find the eloquent to be more clever than they are. And again, you only have unsupported assertions. No doubt this "cry foul" comment is a weak attempt to avoid being called on not explicitly showing evidence for your accusation.

No. This is a clear distortion, for someone who asks if I am dense, dishonest, and now claiming confirmation bias.
It is because evidence of physical injury does not demonstrate their "Spiritual state," nor does it demonstrate that they were, in fact, in life threatening combat situations. It demonstrates that their body took damage. It does not validate nor invalidate what beliefs they may or may not hold.
It is a straw man and I will not continue repeating myself to refute it.

Again, ad nauseam, where have I even once argued that "physical injury ... demonstrate their Spiritual state"? How many more times are you going to trot out this obvious straw man?

Physical injury, along with their service record of how the injury was inflicted, is more than sufficient evidence of life-threatening combat situation. But I guess since you claim that veterans are likely liars and that you have served, I should consider that an admission of you own honesty.

The only straw man here is the one you do keep repeating about physical injury demonstrating ANYTHING about spirituality.

Very well: State your reason for raising the issue, then. YOU did raise the issue. You DID state that was a source of Solid evidence, did you not? Solid evidence of What? What does it, as solid evidence support? No excuses:
State it clearly as an assertion and its purpose.
Refusal to do so will demonstrate that you are trolling.

Yet again, for no less than the sixth time:

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.

Just as I said above, physical injury supported by a service record is more than ample objective evidence of having experienced imminent threat of death. I've told you this many times now. Perhaps this time it will stick? This has NOTHING to do with anyone's beliefs. Again, I've said this many times. Pay attention.

I accept a veteran's self-reported belief at the time of injury at face value. So far it has been you who has questioned their honesty and even made the argument that atheists would be the most likely to lie. I accept that possibility and have asked why, when their lying would increase the evidence for atheists in imminently life-threatening situations, you cannot provide any evidence.

Of course you've ignored all of this. Attentional blindness and confirmation bias hard at work.

As for "purpose", I assume you mean my intent in asking/stating. My current intent is simply to see if atheists can live up to the ideals they profess when in a similar situation as a theist. So far, you've reacted exactly as I'd expect a theist to.

My original purpose was just to question the thought-terminating cliche nature of that particular meme.

 

[Neverfly]

What you've repeatedly said is vague and asserts nothing except for implying what you deny it implies.
So let me try a different way:
Do you believe that there are no atheists in foxholes?
A direct yes or no answer ill suffice.

You still sound just like a theist. A theist would say that you, as an atheist, simply don't have access to the abundant evidence for a god because you are not open to the evidence which exists everywhere. Same confirmation bias at work in both cases.

Only objective evidence can differentiate the two, which is usually where atheists make a strong argument. Sadly you are lacking any in this case, and are forced to resort to vacuous assertions, dishonest troll tactics, and fallacies.

Wrong. That we do not have access to soldiers psych profiles and medical records is understandable and plausible.
That we do not have access to evidence of God is an absurdity as there is overwhelming evidence that the God as described cannot exist, that there was never any great Flood and many bible stories are fictitious and there is no intelligent design.

You are shifting the goal posts.

Physical injury, along with their service record of how the injury was inflicted, is more than sufficient evidence of life-threatening combat situation.

But it does not demonstrate their spiritual beliefs at any time. It only verifies that they received injuries. We do not have access to these records, but those records, unlike God, do exist.

The only straw man here is the one you do keep repeating about physical injury demonstrating ANYTHING about spirituality.

Then clarify why you are asking about it? You posted Three quotes of yours asking about it. If we are in agreement that it doesn't demonstrate their spiritual beliefs one way or the other- why had you pushed the issue?

Just as I said above, physical injury supported by a service record is more than ample objective evidence of having experienced imminent threat of death. I've told you this many times now. Perhaps this time it will stick? This has NOTHING to do with anyone's beliefs. Again, I've said this many times. Pay attention.

Ok, then it's irrelevant and you were mistaken to raise the issue since here, you declare it has NOTHING to do with beliefs? Then why did you fuss over it? Make up your mind, Syne...

I accept a veteran's self-reported belief at the time of injury at face value.

Anecdotal evidence?

My original purpose was just to question the thought-terminating cliche nature of that particular meme.

Fascinating.

 

[Syne]

What you've repeatedly said is vague and asserts nothing except for implying what you deny it implies.

Are you kidding? Could you be any more vague in your accusation of vagueness?

So let me try a different way:
Do you believe that there are no atheists in foxholes?
A direct yes or no answer ill suffice.

According to available objectively verifiable evidence I am forced to say that I cannot currently affirm that there are any atheists in foxholes (as I've already defined the term). Like any objective and intellectually honest person, I would easily affirm it with sufficient evidence.

What you seem to miss is that I don't have a vested interest in the outcome, either way the evidence leads. I merely insist upon intellectual honesty.

You still sound just like a theist. A theist would say that you, as an atheist, simply don't have access to the abundant evidence for a god because you are not open to the evidence which exists everywhere. Same confirmation bias at work in both cases.

Only objective evidence can differentiate the two, which is usually where atheists make a strong argument. Sadly you are lacking any in this case, and are forced to resort to vacuous assertions, dishonest troll tactics, and fallacies.

Wrong. That we do not have access to soldiers psych profiles and medical records is understandable and plausible.
That we do not have access to evidence of God is an absurdity as there is overwhelming evidence that the God as described cannot exist, that there was never any great Flood and many bible stories are fictitious and there is no intelligent design.

You are shifting the goal posts.

If a creator god did exist then everything in existence would be evidence, so we have access to an overabundance of possible evidence. The descriptions of a god are as fallible as the men who describe it, but the generally assumed fundamental attributes of a god are not logically inconsistent with reality, except insofar as your bias blinds your reasoning skills.

Again with the vague accusations in lieu of valid argument. Exactly what goal posts have been moved?

Physical injury, along with their service record of how the injury was inflicted, is more than sufficient evidence of life-threatening combat situation.

But it does not demonstrate their spiritual beliefs at any time. It only verifies that they received injuries. We do not have access to these records, but those records, unlike God, do exist.

AGAIN, WHERE HAVE I SAID A SINGLE THING ABOUT PHYSICAL INJURY DEMONSTRATING SPIRITUAL BELIEF?? You're just a simple-minded troll after all, aren't you?

All this talk about service records is just a red herring. I only mentioned them because you insisted that veterans were lousy with liars. You've yet to demonstrate how that has any bearing on the issue at all, even though I've asked several times now. You simply want to deflect the notion of proving atheists remain so in imminently life-threatening conditions to a trivial one of whether service records exist.

That is the only goal post that has been moved here.

You just continue to pile straw man atop straw man, apparently with the hope that you can eventually light the whole thing ablaze and forget your appalling inability to address objective reality in the face of your cognitive bias.

The only straw man here is the one you do keep repeating about physical injury demonstrating ANYTHING about spirituality.

Then clarify why you are asking about it? You posted Three quotes of yours asking about it. If we are in agreement that it doesn't demonstrate their spiritual beliefs one way or the other- why had you pushed the issue?

Already answered in my last post, as quoted bellow.

Just as I said above, physical injury supported by a service record is more than ample objective evidence of having experienced imminent threat of death. I've told you this many times now. Perhaps this time it will stick? This has NOTHING to do with anyone's beliefs. Again, I've said this many times. Pay attention.

Ok, then it's irrelevant and you were mistaken to raise the issue since here, you declare it has NOTHING to do with beliefs? Then why did you fuss over it? Make up your mind, Syne...

You really are just a literal-minded simpleton, aren't you? I've already told you that "imminent threat of death" is the whole point of the foxhole in the cliche. Thus "imminent threat of death" has everything to do with the saying under discussion here. Permanently disabling injury is only objective evidence of "imminent threat of death", nothing more.

Can you follow that simple reasoning, or do I need to draw you a picture in crayon?

Physical injury is only objective evidence for "imminent threat of death". Atheism under the conditions of "imminent threat of death" is the whole point here. Physical injury saying nothing about belief, it merely verifies that the given conditions were indeed met.

Do you know nothing about the scientific method? Do you really call yourself an atheist?!

I accept a veteran's self-reported belief at the time of injury at face value.

Anecdotal evidence?

There is no empirical evidence for a person's subjective belief. In which case, anecdotal evidence is acceptable, as it is the only available form of evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

We should only accept anecdotal evidence where empirical evidence is not possible.

Fascinating.

What's fascinating is that you completely ignored my current purpose:

My current intent is simply to see if atheists can live up to the ideals they profess when in a similar situation as a theist. So far, you've reacted exactly as I'd expect a theist to.

 

[Neverfly]

Are you kidding?

Nope.

Bold mine:

According to available objectively verifiable evidence I am forced to say that I cannot currently affirm that there are any atheists in foxholes (as I've already defined the term). Like any objective and intellectually honest person, I would easily affirm it with sufficient evidence.

Ok.

If a creator god did exist then everything in existence would be evidence,

False. It would be evidence that it existed- not that it was deliberately designed and created by an omnipotent being.

the generally assumed fundamental attributes of a god are not logically inconsistent with reality, except insofar as your bias blinds your reasoning skills.

Absurdly false. You clearly do not understand the evidence and the weight of the evidence behind the fossil record, evolution and big bang cosmology.
That evidence is readily available and downloadable as pdf format. I suggest you look into it.

All this talk about service records is just a red herring. I only mentioned them because you insisted that veterans were lousy with liars. You've yet to demonstrate how that has any bearing on the issue at all, even though I've asked several times now. You simply want to deflect the notion of proving atheists remain so in imminently life-threatening conditions to a trivial one of whether service records exist.

False.
I pointed out that Injuries do not show Life Threatening dire circumstances.

I pointed out that, as you refused to accept anecdotal- quite rightly- we require records. We do not have access to them.
I pointed out that we need psych profiles to compare.

The reason honesty is question is for the same reason anecdotal evidence is questioned. Someone who really understands how fallacies operate would know this, yet you seem to understand the difference, or lack of it. The ability to lie, whether they actually would or not, makes it poor evidence.

I pointed out that being injured has no bearing on their beliefs-- Which oddly enough, you expressed great frustration as you voiced agreement about that-- Yet you were the one who raised that issue and said it would be solid evidence to the Atheists in foxholes argument.
This is a clear inconsistency on your part resulting in me asking you to clarify your position.

You really are just a literal-minded simpleton, aren't you?

Ad hom fallacy. What was it you said earlier about resorting to what tactics? hmmm... Let's read on...

I've already told you that "imminent threat of death" is the whole point of the foxhole in the cliche. Thus "imminent threat of death" has everything to do with the saying under discussion here. Permanently disabling injury is only objective evidence of "imminent threat of death", nothing more.

It's evidence of a higher probability of imminent threat of death, but by no means conclusive.
Either way, you agreed, emphatically that it has no bearing whatsoever with beliefs, you said "Nothing to do with" with nothing in all caps and bold yet NOW you say that it has everything to do with the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes."
This is your inconsistency and this is why I asked you to clarify and this is why I said you were shifting the goal posts.

Can you follow that simple reasoning, or do I need to draw you a picture in crayon?

Cute.

Physical injury is only objective evidence for "imminent threat of death". Atheism under the conditions of "imminent threat of death" is the whole point here. Physical injury saying nothing about belief, it merely verifies that the given conditions were indeed met.

Call me crazy, (I'm sure you have other ad homs lined up, too) but umm...
Doesn't atheism or non-atheism kinda have to do with... I dunno... BELIEFS?!

There is no empirical evidence for a person's subjective belief. In which case, anecdotal evidence is acceptable, as it is the only available form of evidence.

Really? Oh... well I took you seriously when you said earlier that anecdotal could not be accepted, when you poked fun at the lack of availability/access of hard evidence and demanded, "Solid Evidence."
So inconsistent...

 

[DaveC426913]

Strawman.

You claim you don't need "any gods," I remind you of the usual definitions of "God" and require you to post your own - and you refuse to do so.


:shrug:

Wynn, I'll reuse seagypsy's vampire analogy to question why you need to make this requirement.

SG doesn't believe in vampires. Regardless of what definition - be they blood-sucking bats or sparkly lover-boys - they don't exist in reality. They are the fanciful creations of imaginative minds, and there are as many types as there are authors.

Are you suggesting that SG cannot claim he doesn't believe in vampires unless he chooses some author's idea of what it is?

Here's the problem: it is an impossible task to do so. SG is incapable of providing a definitive description of a fictional thing, of which there are uncountable ideas.

How does that mean he doesn't have a valid argument? His assertion is that vampires - by anyone's account of what they are - do not exist.

Vampires are a category. Specific definitions are subsets of that category. SG does not grant that the category of things exists. That means all things in that category - whether defined or not - do not exist. They only need to be defined enough such that they fit into the category.


The same argument applies to any other concept that SG or anyone else considers non-real.

 

[Syne]

Nope.

So no less vague justification for your accusation?

False. It would be evidence that it existed- not that it was deliberately designed and created by an omnipotent being.

I guess you completely missed the premise "If a creator god did exist".

the generally assumed fundamental attributes of a god are not logically inconsistent with reality, except insofar as your bias blinds your reasoning skills.

Absurdly false. You clearly do not understand the evidence and the weight of the evidence behind the fossil record, evolution and big bang cosmology.
That evidence is readily available and downloadable as pdf format. I suggest you look into it.

What does any of that have to do with the logical possible existence of a god? I didn't say that the Bible, or any other scripture, was infallible. I actually pointed out the fallibility of scripture written by men, but you selectively quoted me like the troll you are.

The descriptions of a god are as fallible as the men who describe it,...

I understand and don't in the least bit refute the fossil record, evolution, nor big bang cosmology. If you don't have any clue as to what the generally assumed fundamental attributes of a generic god are, perhaps you should ask rather than make a fool of yourself with erroneous assumptions.

Pull your biased head out of a strictly Abrahamic morass. The fundamental attributes of a god logically consistent with all empirical evidence are omnipotence and omniscience. Nothing more.

And no, the logical consistency does not necessitate the actuality. But you cannot dismiss the logical consistency just because you don't find it favorable.

False.
I pointed out that Injuries do not show Life Threatening dire circumstances.

I pointed out that, as you refused to accept anecdotal- quite rightly- we require records. We do not have access to them.
I pointed out that we need psych profiles to compare.

The reason honesty is question is for the same reason anecdotal evidence is questioned. Someone who really understands how fallacies operate would know this, yet you seem to understand the difference, or lack of it. The ability to lie, whether they actually would or not, makes it poor evidence.

First, what the hell do psych records have to do with any of this? Just another of your red herrings. Second, I've already told you that there exists no possible objective evidence for a person's subjective beliefs. Do you know what subjective means?

Btw, it is fairly easy to corroborate a combat injury with military service information available to the general public through the Freedom of Information Act. http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/foia-info.html These include dates of service and eligibility for awards and decorations, both of which are ample for establishing the credibility of a combat injury.

I pointed out that being injured has no bearing on their beliefs-- Which oddly enough, you expressed great frustration as you voiced agreement about that-- Yet you were the one who raised that issue and said it would be solid evidence to the Atheists in foxholes argument.
This is a clear inconsistency on your part resulting in me asking you to clarify your position.

You didn't point out anything but your attack of a straw man you erected that had nothing to do with anything I have said. Why would I ever be frustrated about agreeing with a conclusion I have never refuted? You can't even seem to keep your own argument straight, much less manage to follow mine.

How many times must I tell you that the evidence is only of the condition that would satisfy the "atheists in foxholes" cliche. Never mind, it's apparent you are constitutionally incapable of following any simple logical reasoning.

No wonder you keep getting so confused and reasserting the same straw man.

Ad hom fallacy. What was it you said earlier about resorting to what tactics? hmmm... Let's read on...

It is no ad hom when you have abundantly demonstrated your literal-minded simplicity. Have you figured out what straw man you keep using yet?

It's evidence of a higher probability of imminent threat of death, but by no means conclusive.
Either way, you agreed, emphatically that it has no bearing whatsoever with beliefs, you said "Nothing to do with" with nothing in all caps and bold yet NOW you say that it has everything to do with the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes."
This is your inconsistency and this is why I asked you to clarify and this is why I said you were shifting the goal posts.

And I just provided you with a link to the FOIA info that makes it sufficiently conclusive.

And nope, you still don't have any clue as to the straw man you keep using. Why don't you quit confusing yourself by using the indefinite pronoun "it"? I'll make these explicit in your above quote to illustrate what you are missing:

Either way, you agreed, emphatically that it physical injury has no bearing whatsoever with beliefs, you said "Nothing to do with" with nothing in all caps and bold yet NOW you say that it imminent threat of death has everything to do with the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes."

By definition, "foxhole" implies imminent threat of death. You cannot have one without the other...that would be a trench not a foxhole. One can be in imminent threat of death without physical injury, but physical injury is objective evidence of having been in imminent threat of death.

The foxhole, i.e. imminent threat of death, is the necessary condition for the statement "atheists in foxholes". Remove this condition and the statement is completely meaningless.

Belief has nothing to do with the condition of a foxhole, only the status of being an atheist. Objective reasoning and logic dictate that, for the statement to be true, both must intersect. The status of being an atheist must exist in the condition of a foxhole (imminent threat of death).

I've already explained how easy it is to corroborate someone having been in the given condition, regardless of honesty, and I've already explained how there is no available objective evidence for a subjective belief, leaving only anecdotal evidence. Condition and status, two separate things that must coexist to make the statement true.

There, I've spelled it all out for you. If you can't follow that then you truly are beyond help.

Call me crazy, (I'm sure you have other ad homs lined up, too) but umm...
Doesn't atheism or non-atheism kinda have to do with... I dunno... BELIEFS?!

Another straw man, as I've never refuted that atheism/theism has something to do with belief, as I've just spelled out for you above.

Really? Oh... well I took you seriously when you said earlier that anecdotal could not be accepted, when you poked fun at the lack of availability/access of hard evidence and demanded, "Solid Evidence."
So inconsistent...

Yes, I know you haven't been able to comprehend that your straw man completely misrepresented what I have been saying all along. You keep conflating evidence for imminent threat of death with evidence for belief.

I have always maintained that only the condition could have "solid evidence", while the status can only have anecdotal evidence. It is only the former (condition of imminent threat of death) I denied anecdotal evidence for, as empirical evidence is available (no matter all of your red herrings to the contrary).



Now why don't you try to read and really put some effort into actually comprehending this one post for once.

 

[Jeeves]

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.

On what notion of godhead are those supposed foxhole conversions made?
If he isn't supposed to answer prayers, why be forever praying? If he isn't expected to save the believer's life, why lean on him in frightful times? If his rod and his staff provide no comfort, wherefore the psalm? If he doesn't give daily bread, why say grace?
Confused is right!

 

[DaveC426913]

On what notion of godhead are those supposed foxhole conversions made?
If he isn't supposed to answer prayers, why be forever praying? If he isn't expected to save the believer's life, why lean on him in frightful times? If his rod and his staff provide no comfort, wherefore the psalm? If he doesn't give daily bread, why say grace?
Confused is right!

Thing is, not understanding something is not justification for dismissing it as false.


In this respect, wynn is correct. If anyone is going to pick at details of a belief, it behooves them to acquaint themselves with those details.

(Me, I dispute categorically, rather than splitting hairs.)

 

[Jeeves]

Thing is, not understanding something is not justification for dismissing it as false.


In this respect, wynn is correct. If anyone is going to pick at details of a belief, it behooves them to acquaint themselves with those details.

(Me, I dispute categorically, rather than splitting hairs.)

Not dismissing it as false because i don't understand it. They say one thing that's all holy and indisputable, but when it proves palpably untrue, they say you shouldn't expect it to have been true, and assert that sense, fairness and reliability are unreasonable to expect. I understand it just fine. Dismissing it 'coz it doesn't frickin work!