Opinion and Several Questions from a Non-Believer

[Neverfly]

and that's simply your belief

Required Reading:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Common Tactic among believers Warning:
-They like to present the Illusion that Science is a religion or practice of faith.
-They like to present the illusion that evidence includes wishful thinking.
-They like to cast doubt on that which is demonstrated as accurate or a model of reality while supporting that which cannot be demonstrated at all.
-They like to turn everything around as often as possible to muddy the waters, make the illusions confusing enough that others don't know what to think and decide that strange absurdities must have as much validity as rigorously tested scientific principles. Which is nonsense, because if this was the case, we could never progress technologically.

They use these tactics often and without shame.

 

[lightgigantic]

Required Reading:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

feel free to explain how these links offer credence to your assertions

Common Tactic among believers Warning:
-They like to present the Illusion that Science is a religion or practice of faith.
-They like to present the illusion that evidence includes wishful thinking.
-They like to cast doubt on that which is demonstrated as accurate or a model of reality while supporting that which cannot be demonstrated at all.
-They like to turn everything around as often as possible to muddy the waters, make the illusions confusing enough that others don't know what to think and decide that strange absurdities must have as much validity as rigorously tested scientific principles. Which is nonsense, because if this was the case, we could never progress technologically.

They use these tactics often and without shame.

actually at this point I am just trying to help you understand what empiricism is (and isn't).
:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

feel free to explain how these links offer credence to your assertions

They don't.
They are there for you to learn basic definitions since you seem to have no idea what any of these words you repeatedly misuse mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI

 

[Lori_7]

And again- I spent 5 years in the ministry myself. You don't know what I have experienced in my life.

well on behalf of the entire human race, thanks a lot asshole liar, for ministering something you didn't believe in.

You only admitted that you cannot provide any evidence that can be examined. You cannot provide evidence that it was not you, practicing self confirmation, that "proved God" to yourself.

i know, and that's all that matters to me. you probably don't understand this due to your indoctrination and subsequent blasphemy, but i am not even remotely interested in proving god's existence to you. you want to know? you find out just like i did. you don't want to know? stfu.

But all of that Independently Verifiable Evidence bears weight and merit. Given that evidence, without meeting her, I can accept it as Likely that she does exist.

You admit that you can provide- NOTHING -on behalf of God. Zero. Nada. Your excuse is that I must find that all by myself.

god is everywhere. god is everything. god is law. god is the answer. if you can't see that, it's your problem, not mine (ultimately).

Funny, cuz that's always been the demonstrated case with God, demons, angels, elves and whathaveyou as well...

really? because prayer, sin, and communion can be explained by quantum physics and biology. did you know that?

Hogwash.

If you didn't WANT the belief- you wouldn't have it. That's the whole nature of faith and belief.

you're talking about wishful thinking, and i'm talking about trust in something i know. i don't care if you know what i know. keep dreaming.

Perhaps you have changed in some ways that could be self improvement. However, you demonstrate the same rationale as those same religious people you now condemn. You display the same contradictions, denials and circular arguments.
If improving on yourself is your primary goal, is it not more logical to question yourself instead of justifying yourself? To provide answers instead of excuses? To examine glaring contradictions in your statements?

there are no contradictions in my statements. you don't know god. i do.

improving upon myself wasn't my goal, it was an outcome. i just said i had no desire to change. what i desired was THE TRUTH, no matter what that meant for me. and now i have answers that you don't want to see. that's not my problem.

I pointed out earlier that you seem to be a nice person. In my own dealings with you on this forum, that is what I've witnessed and I appreciate it. Others may disagree... Is that one of the changes you refer to? I don't know...
But I've had to go through a LOT of changes on my own, too.

And "losing my belief in God" was one of the more painful experiences.
I, too, am grateful for that change.

i'm not nice. i can't help but think there's some inherent lie embedded in "nice". like, "this is who i really am, but right now, i'm going to be nice." that's not me. if you witness any good changes in me, i can absolutely attribute those to god.

 

[Neverfly]

well on behalf of the entire human race, thanks a lot asshole liar, for ministering something you didn't believe in.

Did it even occur to you that I was a Christian back then?

Might want to use your brain a bit before you call someone an "Asshole Liar."

I mean, seriously... That was so obvious and it flew right over your head. Talk about Amazing Grace...

i know, and that's all that matters to me.

Hogwash again. You are debating the religious topics on this forum constantly. Your behavior is in direct conflict with this claim.
You only use this claim NOW because you know that you can provide no evidence.

you probably don't understand this due to your indoctrination and subsequent blasphemy,

You mean Christianity?
No, it's cool. I'm atheist- now.

but i am not even remotely interested in proving god's existence to you. you want to know? you find out just like i did. you don't want to know? stfu.

I also don't feel the need to lie to myself.

really? because prayer, sin, and communion can be explained by quantum physics and biology. did you know that?

Provide evidence to support this claim. Don't back out of it later by claiming you don't care to or that I need to find it myself.
You are the claimant- Support the claim or withdraw it.

there are no contradictions in my statements.

I have pointed several of them out to you.

what i desired was THE TRUTH, no matter what that meant for me.

How can you call something you admit is non falsifiable and that you refuse to provide evidence for the truth™?

and now i have answers that you don't want to see. that's not my problem.

No, you don't want to provide any evidence to support- You refuse to flat out.

i'm not nice. i can't help but think there's some inherent lie embedded in "nice". like, "this is who i really am, but right now, i'm going to be nice." that's not me. if you witness any good changes in me, i can absolutely attribute those to god.

No- I stand corrected. You couldn't even figure out that when I was in the ministry, I was a Christian back then. And called me an asshole liar over your own stupidity.

Not nice- But hilarious all the same. I can't think of a better way for you to have made such a complete fool of yourself without any outside help- But I look forward to your next feat.

 

[Lori_7]

Did it even occur to you that I was a Christian back then?

Might want to use your brain a bit before you call someone an "Asshole Liar."

I mean, seriously... That was so obvious and it flew right over your head. Talk about Amazing Grace...

bullshit. you never knew. you were never a christian. it was a lie. wasn't it?

Hogwash again. You are debating the religious topics on this forum constantly. Your behavior is in direct conflict with this claim.
You only use this claim NOW because you know that you can provide no evidence.

how is my behavior in conflict with christianity?

You mean Christianity?
No, it's cool. I'm atheist- now.

which means you never knew.

I also don't feel the need to lie to myself.

but you feel the need for someone else to lie to you? perhaps that's conditioning.

Provide evidence to support this claim. Don't back out of it later by claiming you don't care to or that I need to find it myself.
You are the claimant- Support the claim or withdraw it.

watch a movie called "what the bleep do we know?" you won't get it because you don't want to.

I have pointed several of them out to you.

and i have explained to you that it's due to your lack of knowledge.

How can you call something you admit is non falsifiable and that you refuse to provide evidence for the truth™?

because i know it. because it has been proven to me. you have not been privy to the evidence that i have been, because you don't seek it. you don't want to know.

No, you don't want to provide any evidence to support- You refuse to flat out.

i am extremely open and honest on this forum, and will answer any questions you have, but i am in no way delusional. i don't think that my testimony will prove god's existence to anyone.

No- I stand corrected. You couldn't even figure out that when I was in the ministry, I was a Christian back then. And called me an asshole liar over your own stupidity.

if you didn't know god, you were not a christian.

Not nice- But hilarious all the same. I can't think of a better way for you to have made such a complete fool of yourself without any outside help- But I look forward to your next feat.

well, i'm at least glad i can make you laugh. that's nice.

 

[Neverfly]

No, I won't watch some b.s. video. I could watch Capricorn One if someone claims we never landed on the Moon, too.

You refused to provide evidence to support your claim.
Consider yourself Debunked.

As well as delusional. Anyone that REALLY BELIEVED they had the "TWOOF™ " would have no problem providing support for it. Your worming out of it only demonstrates your fear to do so and your attempt to cling to your delusion.

bullshit. you never knew. you were never a christian. it was a lie. wasn't it?

And that's enough of you.

 

[Lori_7]

No, I won't watch some b.s. video. I could watch Capricorn One if someone claims we never landed on the Moon, too.

You refused to provide evidence to support your claim.
Consider yourself Debunked.

As well as delusional. Anyone that REALLY BELIEVED they had the "TWOOF™ " would have no problem providing support for it. Your worming out of it only demonstrates your fear to do so and your attempt to cling to your delusion.

And that's enough of you.

well the truth hurts, doesn't it? which is why most people don't look for it. and your testimony has been duly noted.

 

[Neverfly]

well the truth hurts, doesn't it? which is why most people don't look for it. and your testimony has been duly noted.

Whatever you say. Label whatever concepts you invent off the top of your head as truth and that makes it so.

Knock yourself out.

 

[lightgigantic]

They don't.
They are there for you to learn basic definitions since you seem to have no idea what any of these words you repeatedly misuse mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI

I'm not sure you understand.
I understand the terms but I don't understand how they lend credence to your assertions.

I'm just offering you an opportunity to explain yourself.
:shrug:

 

[James R]

No, it's cool. I'm atheist- now.

which means you never knew.

I think you'll find many atheists who were former Christians - some of them as devout as you are.

 

[Lori_7]

Whatever you say. Label whatever concepts you invent off the top of your head as truth and that makes it so.

Knock yourself out.

you don't even understand the concepts that you were trying to teach. because you never lived through them like i have. if you had, you would know. that's the truth.

 

[Lori_7]

I think you'll find many atheists who were former Christians - some of them as devout as you are.

yes, and i'm not surprised. god is not religion. knowing god is not practicing religion. it's not the same thing. i think many times religion is used as a substitute for the real thing. it depends upon the intentions of the practitioner i suppose. i don't practice a religion. i live my life according to my beliefs. that's the best i can do i think.

 

[Neverfly]

I'm not sure you understand.
I understand the terms but I don't understand how they lend credence to your assertions.

I'm just offering you an opportunity to explain yourself.
:shrug:

Let me get this straight...

I need to explain myself for your misuse and misapplication of words?

Lightgigantic...
If I don't believe in fairies, that is not a belief. It is a Lack of belief.
If I have a vacuum chamber, it is not a glass full of "nothings".

I am a skeptic. This means that I don't take evidence lightly. It means that I don't just accept claims without support for those claims.
Your intent is to paint an image in which I'm some godless-believer, trying to take away your God.

The only reason you have to do this is to weasel out of the responsibility you have to support your claims with evidence with round about fallacies and titling at windmills. Misrepresentation is a primary tactic you use. You do not confront ideas- You confront the person presenting them.
You do not support your claims, you attack others statements, questions or ideas and you misrepresent all of those in order to cloud the issues.

I'm not the one who needs to explain himself here; You are. You need to explain why you cannot just simply provide evidence when you make a claim.
Explain why you attack people instead of ideas.
Explain why you put words in others mouths, misrepresent basic concepts and cloud the topic.

I will offer you an explanation on a platter- My gift from me to you- absolutely free of charge: You behave this way because you cannot support your claims. You must confuse people because you cannot provide clarity. You must attack people because you fear them. You must misrepresent things in order to present the illusion of merit for your own claims.

you don't even understand the concepts that you were trying to teach. because you never lived through them like i have. if you had, you would know. that's the truth.

Consider me grateful then. What a fool I was to have been a Christian. Thank you Lori- for revealing the Truth™.

 

[lightgigantic]

Let me get this straight...

I need to explain myself for your misuse and misapplication of words?

Lightgigantic...
If I don't believe in fairies, that is not a belief. It is a Lack of belief.
.

The problem is that you qualify your disbelief

namely ....

We are talking about your belief that there is no evidence (which is more often than not the case with atheist fanatics, a consequence of the belief that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims)

The opportunity is for you to explain why you accept the empirical model exclusively ... or even why you think you are not accepting it exclusively.

I am a skeptic. This means that I don't take evidence lightly. It means that I don't just accept claims without support for those claims.
Your intent is to paint an image in which I'm some godless-believer, trying to take away your God.

actually I am trying to point out that you are holding a specific model for evidence - namely empiricism

If you disagree, feel free to clarify your stance.

Posting links to generic structure of debate and spouting a host of hot air claims about mis-application and tilted wind mills doesn't really mean much unless you clarify your position.

:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

The opportunity is for you to explain why you accept the empirical model exclusively ... or even why you think you are not accepting it exclusively

Very well. Because a severe lack of evidence for a claim and strongly supported evidence that refutes a claim are compelling.

It is not belief nor faith to accept the likeliest conclusion from strong evidence.
Belief or faith requires no evidence.

Posting links to generic structure of debate and spouting a host of hot air claims about mis-application and tilted wind mills doesn't really mean much unless you clarify your position.

:shrug:

Well, you have been doing a fine job of clarifying it for me

 

[lightgigantic]

Very well. Because a severe lack of evidence for a claim and strongly supported evidence that refutes a claim are compelling.

I'm not sure I follow.

If you are holding the empirical model as the most authoritative, its not clear how you expect evidence of god to even be theoretically capable of being revealed by it.

What strongly supported evidence refutes the claim of god's existence?

It is not belief nor faith to accept the likeliest conclusion from strong evidence.
Belief or faith requires no evidence.

as mentioned several times already, its your belief that the empirical model has a monopoly on all knowable claims (and thus constitutes the full length and breath of the word "evidence") that is under scrutiny

Well, you have been doing a fine job of clarifying it for me

so far all you have done is string adjectives to your belief

.... a severe lack of evidence ....

... strongly supported evidence ...

etc etc

 

[Neverfly]

I'm not sure I follow.

If you are holding the empirical model as the most authoritative, its not clear how you expect evidence of god to even be theoretically capable of being revealed by it.

So, you admit that your giant elf in the sky is not supported by any kind of tangible evidence whatsoever. Thank you.

What strongly supported evidence refutes the claim of god's existence?

I have explained this to you many times. Are you telling me that none of it ever sank in at all?

as mentioned several times already, its your belief that the empirical model has a monopoly on all knowable claims (and thus constitutes the full length and breath of the word "evidence") that is under scrutiny

First: It's length and Breadth.
Get educated.

Stop misusing words in order to confuse issues with your roundabout circular claims.

This is not hard- Since you seem compelled to distort the issue by 'fancifying' it into a muddled glop of nonsense- I will simplify it for you.

Evidence supports claims.
Without examination of evidence, any claim could be either true or untrue with no way of knowing. Puff the Magic Dragon, Underwear stealing gnomes and the like are equally valid unless a method is used to separate Fantasy from Reality.

 

[Lori_7]

Consider me grateful then. What a fool I was to have been a Christian. Thank you Lori- for revealing the Truth™.

you were never a christian; you were a liar.

 

[lightgigantic]

So, you admit that your giant elf in the sky is not supported by any kind of tangible evidence whatsoever. Thank you.

I have explained this to you many times. Are you telling me that none of it ever sank in at all?

You seem to insist on using a bevy of words like "tangible", "strong" etc in your use of the word "evidence".

On a hunch, I assume you are talking about empiricism.

I have to say hunch because you haven't even begun to explain anything about it

First: It's length and Breadth.
Get educated.

its just a typo

Stop misusing words in order to confuse issues with your roundabout circular claims.

This is not hard- Since you seem compelled to distort the issue by 'fancifying' it into a muddled glop of nonsense- I will simplify it for you.

Evidence supports claims.
Without examination of evidence, any claim could be either true or untrue with no way of knowing. Puff the Magic Dragon, Underwear stealing gnomes and the like are equally valid unless a method is used to separate Fantasy from Reality.

the problem is that you (appear) to be dismissing any claim that is evidenced outside of empiricism ...

The only thing obvious from your posts is that you don't want to discus this

:shrug: