Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PleasyJeazy Wrote:... at what point is someone being gullible?

Well, you'll just have to face up to that yourself, lil' camper. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
25-02-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(25-02-2013 12:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 12:21 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Almost makes you want to go on Skype and call good old Steven, doesn't it?


Dude, I know you like my voice. But if you really need a fix, just watch my YouTube video again. Tongue
Your voice is sexy, but I need somebody to talk to. You just happen to fit the bill, prophet of the Grumpy Cat.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(25-02-2013 10:33 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Remember that centurion dude, looking for Jesus to heal his spawn? And Jesus is like, lead the way, but the centurion goes, just say it, and I know it will be done. And Jesus goes. that's what I'm talking about. So, how the fuck you get so lost, you feel the need to transplant trees on an atheist forum? Where's your mustard seed?
More Cantor quotes for the scrapbook Smile Yay!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
25-02-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(25-02-2013 09:53 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The videos were entertaining, thanks, everyone. I thought y'all were imaginary before you posted them. Smile Of course I didn't. But, can I accept them as rock solid proof YOU exist?

Now, moving on. Let's get to it. What do you really mean by a statement like "independently verifiable" regarding the existence of me, or of you, or of God? Let me explain by way of analogy if I may...

Have you been in a relationship and been pleased to hear your significant other say, "I love you?" And you say, "Really? That is wonderful! Do you really mean that?" and they say, "I sure do. I do love you."

Do you then say, "Well, I do indeed love you in turn. However, it is difficult for me as a skeptic by nature to accept such anecdotal evidence. Perhaps you don't mind if I ring your family and friends and verify if this is true, if you really do love me...? I cannot accept your personal testimony as evidence." In contrast, if I accept your videos as proof of your existence, I think that's reasonable if I WERE to accept them. Smile I think it's reasonable for me to accept your uncle's name is Ronald if you say it is...

What would you say is reasonable evidence to accept someone else's testimony? I cannot verify with ease that you actually made your videos but I can see them for myself. I cannot see Julius Caesar nor I have communicated with him but I accept authors now long dead who wrote his biographies, critiques and panegyrics. They may have had an imperfect understanding, but...

...If you want me to accept unverified, unsubstantiated thread comments like "I exist" or videos without birth certficates--unforged, unverified birth certificates--that might not exist because papers may be forged--you see how easily I can ensure that I will never provide evidence for God and you will never provide evidence you exist or I exist unless we agree on terms?

My proof for God is NOT my personal testimony nor is it third-party testimony nor the documents of the Bible. But we need to start somewhere. What would you say is reasonable evidence to accept someone else's testimony? At what point do you take a person's testimony for granted? If God were to speak to one of you on this forum, and that person held their lover to the standard they say they'd hold for God--"This must be an hallucination, I must be going crazy," they would be pretty lonely in love relationships...

At what point is a person being reasonable in relying on testimony and at what point is someone being gullible? Thanks.
I love the total lack of acknowledgement that his initial question was fully answered and his false premises were exposed and torn apart, with a simple series of pictures and videos. Already moving on to your next attempt and manipulating language and altering definitions are we?

"Now, moving on. Let's get to it. What do you really mean by a statement like "independently verifiable" regarding the existence of me, or of you, or of God? Let me explain by way of analogy if I may..."

As in, more than one person can reach the same conclusion, and do so independently of anyone else, with access to the same evidence, observations, and evidence. Like the invention of calculus (Leibniz and Newton) or the discovery of evolution (Wallace and Darwin).

"Have you been in a relationship and been pleased to hear your significant other say, "I love you?" And you say, "Really? That is wonderful! Do you really mean that?" and they say, "I sure do. I do love you."Do you then say, "Well, I do indeed love you in turn. However, it is difficult for me as a skeptic by nature to accept such anecdotal evidence. Perhaps you don't mind if I ring your family and friends and verify if this is true, if you really do love me...? I cannot accept your personal testimony as evidence." In contrast, if I accept your videos as proof of your existence, I think that's reasonable if I WERE to accept them. Smile I think it's reasonable for me to accept your uncle's name is Ronald if you say it is..."

You're in left field again. I can certainly they believe they love me, and I can believe I love them. I do not in fact need hard evidence to do so. I do not require absolute knowledge of such emotional connections in order to believe them. I can, however, use more than anecdotal evidence. Ergo, I can ask them questions and learn about them so that I can evaluate if they are infatuated with me or if the connection is deeper, and I can dot the same with myself. And what makes you certain that you have to be certain something is love before you can engage in a relationship with someone else? Plenty of people engage in relationships and then break it off as they realize that infatuation and sexual arousal do not equal love.

Skepticism of skepticisms sake leaves one in a position of not really thinking. You can either agree with everything someone says or disagree with everything someone says. Either way, you never have to think again. I do not require absolute certainty to think, nor believe, nor act. I require sufficient evidence in order to do any of the three and the term sufficient is subjective and varies. I required 3 years with my wife before we got married. I needed more than one class in geology to switch majors. You believe you have some evidence that convinces you of the existence of god. And the rest of us are either saying "show us your 'evidence'" and/or "what you present as evidence is not sufficient for me to believe in a god(s) and until such time as I am presented with sufficient evidence, I will continue to remain a nonbeliever."

And no, I do not know what evidence it would require. But you believe in an omniscient god, so he would know what it would take and either refuses to provide it or cannot. So, he is either a malevolent prick or something unworthy of my praise.

"...If you want me to accept unverified, unsubstantiated thread comments like "I exist" or videos without birth certficates--unforged, unverified birth certificates--that might not exist because papers may be forged--you see how easily I can ensure that I will never provide evidence for God and you will never provide evidence you exist or I exist unless we agree on terms?"

The point here is that you have set standards for proof of something as unambiguous as the existence of any given person on the forum (for which typing a response is indeed proof of existence), that you don't even come close to holding your god to. Your special pleading grows ever wider. And agree on what terms? You have yet to give a definition of what "yourself" is. If we want to start to agree on anything, you have to actually engage in the conversation and not just sit back and claim victory when we fail to meet whatever standards (because we don't know what those are either) for whatever definition of 'yourself' we are supposed to be providing.

This is as if you are standing on a street corner with a sign and people come by and tell you how flawed it is, and then you stuff your fingers in your ears and shout "You're wrong! I have the answers! You can't prove I don't and you can't even prove you exist!" And then continue to avoid any questions raised while ignoring any responses given.

You (as I have said before) have no interest in debate or discussion. You want to come here and proselytize and you are wasting your time. You are not going to convince someone on here that god exists with the posts and strategies you employ. And you are certainly not going to win over the hearts and minds of any freethinker by avoiding rational thought and debate.


So, Drinking Beverage I'll brew myself some more coffee and keep on waiting. I'll wait for your definitions, your responses, and (equally as likely) the Armageddon.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
25-02-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
We've been trolled. He's probably laughing up a storm on some charismatic message board posting our responses for their own entertainment.

"Gee look at the stupid atheists squirm. See how empty their lives are. I am so glad I got a lobotomy! Pass the kool-aid and hand me another rattlesnake"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
25-02-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I love the total lack of acknowledgement that his initial question was fully answered and his false premises were exposed and torn apart, with a simple series of pictures and videos. Already moving on to your next attempt and manipulating language and altering definitions are we?
I beg your pardon. How does a video from someone claiming to be “Billy” prove that they are “Billy”? That is, that Billy exists? I can post a video of the Skyfall trailer, then, and say God posted it. Right? Wrong?
Quote:"Now, moving on. Let's get to it. What do you really mean by a statement like "independently verifiable" regarding the existence of me, or of you, or of God? Let me explain by way of analogy if I may..."

As in, more than one person can reach the same conclusion, and do so independently of anyone else, with access to the same evidence, observations, and evidence. Like the invention of calculus (Leibniz and Newton) or the discovery of evolution (Wallace and Darwin).
Is that really the standard you apply to God also? Because I have a different standard. Scientists in Darwin’s day and now have looked at the fossil evidence and have concluded evolution is fact and other scientists then and now say no. Are you really saying two people who read the NT independently and conclude Jesus is divine have your stamp of approval? Sounds dubious to me. Sounds like you’re gullible.

Quote:"Have you been in a relationship and been pleased to hear your significant other say, "I love you?" And you say, "Really? That is wonderful! Do you really mean that?" and they say, "I sure do. I do love you."Do you then say, "Well, I do indeed love you in turn. However, it is difficult for me as a skeptic by nature to accept such anecdotal evidence. Perhaps you don't mind if I ring your family and friends and verify if this is true, if you really do love me...? I cannot accept your personal testimony as evidence." In contrast, if I accept your videos as proof of your existence, I think that's reasonable if I WERE to accept them. I think it's reasonable for me to accept your uncle's name is Ronald if you say it is..."

You're in left field again. I can certainly they believe they love me, and I can believe I love them. I do not in fact need hard evidence to do so. I do not require absolute knowledge of such emotional connections in order to believe them. I can, however, use more than anecdotal evidence. Ergo, I can ask them questions and learn about them so that I can evaluate if they are infatuated with me or if the connection is deeper, and I can dot the same with myself. And what makes you certain that you have to be certain something is love before you can engage in a relationship with someone else? Plenty of people engage in relationships and then break it off as they realize that infatuation and sexual arousal do not equal love.

Skepticism of skepticisms sake leaves one in a position of not really thinking. You can either agree with everything someone says or disagree with everything someone says. Either way, you never have to think again. I do not require absolute certainty to think, nor believe, nor act. I require sufficient evidence in order to do any of the three and the term sufficient is subjective and varies. I required 3 years with my wife before we got married. I needed more than one class in geology to switch majors. You believe you have some evidence that convinces you of the existence of god. And the rest of us are either saying "show us your 'evidence'" and/or "what you present as evidence is not sufficient for me to believe in a god(s) and until such time as I am presented with sufficient evidence, I will continue to remain a nonbeliever."
And no, I do not know what evidence it would require. But you believe in an omniscient god, so he would know what it would take and either refuses to provide it or cannot. So, he is either a malevolent prick or something unworthy of my praise.
So what is it? When do you trust your relationship to say “I love you” and when do you ask further questions. Be consistent, please. It’s also astonishing how often every freethinker on this forum neglects the whole aspect of “wanting to know” or as Jesus put it, “Seek” other than to mock it.

Quote:"...If you want me to accept unverified, unsubstantiated thread comments like "I exist" or videos without birth certficates--unforged, unverified birth certificates--that might not exist because papers may be forged--you see how easily I can ensure that I will never provide evidence for God and you will never provide evidence you exist or I exist unless we agree on terms?"

The point here is that you have set standards for proof of something as unambiguous as the existence of any given person on the forum (for which typing a response is indeed proof of existence), that you don't even come close to holding your god to. Your special pleading grows ever wider. And agree on what terms? You have yet to give a definition of what "yourself" is. If we want to start to agree on anything, you have to actually engage in the conversation and not just sit back and claim victory when we fail to meet whatever standards (because we don't know what those are either) for whatever definition of 'yourself' we are supposed to be providing.

This is as if you are standing on a street corner with a sign and people come by and tell you how flawed it is, and then you stuff your fingers in your ears and shout "You're wrong! I have the answers! You can't prove I don't and you can't even prove you exist!" And then continue to avoid any questions raised while ignoring any responses given.

You (as I have said before) have no interest in debate or discussion. You want to come here and proselytize and you are wasting your time. You are not going to convince someone on here that god exists with the posts and strategies you employ. And you are certainly not going to win over the hearts and minds of any freethinker by avoiding rational thought and debate.

So, I'll brew myself some more coffee and keep on waiting. I'll wait for your definitions, your responses, and (equally as likely) the Armageddon.
Um, I've given you several opportunities for you to tell me what evidence you would take as bedrock fact that I exist. It’s typical baloney to say “show me a video” (though I did promise auditory and visual proof) on its face since you’re going to need a mighty big lens to capture an omnipresent being. A blind man feeling an elephant’s tail is what you are.

And typing a response or posting a video is not proof of existence. Admit you take the proof of your existence subjectively… on faith. Put another way, please provide an answer for how you know YOU exist. And you can’t do what the other genius IQ’s have done here and say “I exist in some form, even if it’s only in a Matrix,” because that is anti-materialist and begs the question of how you can say you MIGHT be in a Matrix that is unseen and for which there is NO evidence and how no Christian can trust in an unseen divine. Be consistent.

And stop calling me names and a troll. I'm asking you questions so I can learn better what evidentiary reasoning is, so enlighten me instead of being patronizing. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PJ = Troll
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(25-02-2013 10:04 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Sure. How about we start with the visual and auditory evidence for the existence of your god that you claim to possess?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
25-02-2013, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2013 03:05 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Since you are still refusing to give a definition for "yourself," I'll give my own.

Yourself = the physical and mental existence of you (whoever you are)

So, that means

"I beg your pardon. How does a video from someone claiming to be “Billy” prove that they are “Billy”? That is, that Billy exists? I can post a video of the Skyfall trailer, then, and say God posted it. Right? Wrong?"



whoever posted the video or photo or indeed even typed up a response, exists. Irregardless of whatever the name they use or whatever name has been assigned by a human or humans to them. Something that does not exist, leaves behind no physical interaction with the universe, and since posting any reply means interacting with the physical universe, whoever posts it exists.


If you want proof of someone's mental capabilities, being able to have a discussion with them demonstrates they do in fact have the ability to think for themselves. And this is in part why A.I. is such an intriguing topic. Humans may indeed have the ability to construct a thinking organism, and it too would exist.


So, you are trying to say that anyone can post anything on the internet and say it is them? How salient a point Dodgy that no one is arguing against. But you asked for proof of existence. And even if I post a picture of someone else, by posting it, I prove that I exist. Even if I am a computer, I exist. If I am a dog writing this, then I exist. If I say I am god and I am writing this, I still exist. If I make additional claims, such as I am the author of a book or a famous artist, those claims are separate of my existence.

Once again, you asked for existence and then try to argue against responses that prove the existence of whomever is responding. Even if you have a sock-puppet account and are replying to your own challenges, you have still proven you exist.

Whatever name a person uses, is irrelevant. I am either Andrew, TheBeardedDude, Thor, God, Dog, or whatever. Irregardless of whatever name I have been assigned or have assigned to myself, my replies are proof I exist.

If you want me to prove I am indeed who I claim to be on my profile, that is a different question. And one I can also provide justification for if you ask me questions that you feel prove it. But I can't read your mind. I can't provide evidence for a definition or set of standards when I have no idea what it is. Because you have not given a single one.

"Is that really the standard you apply to God also? Because I have a different standard. Scientists in Darwin’s day and now have looked at the fossil evidence and have concluded evolution is fact and other scientists then and now say no. Are you really saying two people who read the NT independently and conclude Jesus is divine have your stamp of approval? Sounds dubious to me. Sounds like you’re gullible."


You have a different standard for independently verifiable? That makes no sense. And Darwin's observations were not strictly fossil evidence, in fact, Darwin used fossils as a supplement and used extant species as the main observations. And I do not know of a single scientist that does not understand evolution as scientific fact. There are plenty of crackpots claiming to be scientists who say it is not, but they have never demonstrated either A) any scientific evidence to support that conclusion or B) the validity of their authority on the subject (some crackpots who do research in fields completely unrelated to evolution may do real science in their research, but that qualifies them in no way to evaluate the validity of evolution. In the same way that my background in geology, lends me no credibility in evaluating anything in medicine).


The last bit about 2 people reading the NT indicates you either have not fully read my other replies or still do not understand. They have nothing more than anecdotal evidence and a book they can't verify the authenticity of nor the accuracy of the stories within nor even the authors who wrote it. Whatever conclusions they come to, can't be evaluated to be more or less likely to be right or wrong. Because they start off on an assumption that is unconvincing and demonstrably false. Your question holds as much water as 2 people discussing Tolkiens works and coming to a conclusion about the teachings of Gandalf. It is irrelevant since they can't prove they are talking about reality, or even show evidence to suggest that it might be reality. But your mixing analogies again and trying to compare faith to science. I may be gullible, but I ask questions about what I am told and come to my own conclusions after weighing the options.


"So what is it? When do you trust your relationship to say “I love you” and when do you ask further questions. Be consistent, please. It’s also astonishing how often every freethinker on this forum neglects the whole aspect of “wanting to know” or as Jesus put it, “Seek” other than to mock it."


Be consistent? I already told you that in such situations, my reasoning and evidence for it is ambiguous. I can't be consistent on my feelings because a lot of times, the love I experience is varied. And not always immediately clear. Sometimes that is because I am being to guarded or the other person is. Sometimes it is because I do not know enough about the other person. And no, I do not know what "enough" will be for every person I encounter. Some require more than others. I needed no incentive to love my son the instant I saw him. I needed a few weeks to start to think of the woman who would be wife 3 years later, as something other than a fling. I needed a few months to say "I love you" and needed a few years to realize why. But you are blurring the lines yet again. Emotions exist. We know they exist. And we know they are chemical in nature. That does not cheapen them. But if love is to be compulsory, then it becomes an ugly thing. Born out of fear and command.


And I have no idea what you mean about "wanting to know" or "seek." Are you trying to say I did not try to understand Jesus or religion? Are you generalizing again without having any clue how I came to my conclusions? If so, allow me to say this, I sought answers. I wanted to know. I asked questions and I gave it much thought. And, just like Santa, I found myself not believing because it was irrational, absurd, insane, illogical, and not coherent with reality in any way shape or form. The claims of religion, the bible, and of any religious figure, were indistinguishable from every crazy 9/11 truther, every bigfoot hunter, every Loch Ness monster supporter, every alien abductee, etc.


I sought and I found a myth. I found one people were so afraid to ask questions about, that they shut down their brain when any uncomfortable truth was spoken. I found a myth that had become so in-grained in our society, that escaping it made you a pariah. I found out that the people claiming to be loving and non-judgmental, where the least of each. I found a myth filled with hate and prejudice. I found that the messiah was perhaps nothing more than a figment of someone else's imagination. I found a story book, with plot holes.


If your god exists, I have never seen evidence to suggest it. I cannot make myself believe something out of fear or desire. You think you have some profound truth or logical argument we have never heard before, but you have presented genuine concerns in ways that demonstrate that you do not understand them. And you refuse any answer to show how they are flawed, or flat-out wrong. You're still standing on that street corner, and yelling louder is only making you look like a bigger fool.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
25-02-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Why are we wasting time with this mental midget? He's not debating, he's masturbating.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: