And So We Wait...

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do people here have nothing better to do then keep tabs on who responded to what?  Other forums I have been to, I have never seen this kind of behavior.  It makes for a very hostile environment and I don't blame them for not obliging. 

 

 

This is a support forum for ex-christians and people in the process of becoming ex-christians. It's only natural that regular members are suspicious of fundigelicals who come here with what we perceive as an intent to challenge us, insult us, and/or bring us back into the christian cult. In the latter case, in particular, they're like booze salesmen going to an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting and saying, "Here, have a drink. It's good for you."

 

Also, we are aware that these forums are viewed by a lot of lurkers who are still contemplating moving beyond christianity. We question people like Iron Horse and Ordinary Clay intensely so the lurkers can see their shallowness and mendacity exposed -- that is, so they can see why we are no longer christians and thereby make a more well-informed decision with respect to their own religious affiliation or lack thereof. You could consider it a public service.

 

Besides, christians who choose to come to our EX-christian site and post in the Lion's Den are warned in advance. "Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. ... An occasionally heated response is allowed and sometimes even encouraged." They know what they have chosen to get into, so I don't feel sorry for them at all.

 

I guess with guidelines like that you can see why there isn't any kind of real debate happening here.  When respect is tossed out the window, any hope of a worthwhile discussion goes out the window.  

 

This seems more like a therapeutic bashing of fundamentalists Christians.  

 

It would be more worthwhile if this section was dedicated to making responses to popular apologists, rather than the kind of Christian you would encounter on this site.

 

Indeed it was this site that lead me to make certain decisions for myself.  That I didn't want to destroy my relationships and life in bitterness over metaphysical issues.  Life is too short imo, but the choice is yours.

 

 

Indeed, as is your choice your own. I personally have no interest in debating christians. I've seen a lot of forums that do feature so-called debates and I find them deadly boring as the christians have nothing new to say. Same old, same old. It would be interesting if they could present evidence to back up their beliefs, but that hasn't happened ever in the past 2000 years.

 

You're claiming that Christians have never attempted to produce an evidential basis for their beliefs in all the 2000 years of their existence?  

 

This is the kind of irrational arguments I'm talking about here.  Whether you agree with the evidence is another matter, but you made an assertion about the absence of any evidence ever presented.

 

 

 

What a convenient use of the straw man argument.  Thanks for demonstrating an irrational argument.

 

 

 

"It would be interesting if they could present evidence to back up their beliefs, but that hasn't happened ever in the past 2000 years."

 

Notice the part in bold?

 

Notice that the underlined word refers to the part in bold?

 

Notice the words "try" and "attempt" do not appear anywhere?

 

 

If you want to counter what Thackerie said then you must provide an example where Christians successfully used evidence to prove Christianity is reasonable.  If you cannot find one single example then perhaps it hasn't happened in 2,000 years.

 

I have presented no straw man, but I guess I should teach you a bit about the preposition "to," when used in the context, "to back up their beliefs."

 

When the word "to" is used in this context, it expresses a purpose that informs the reason for presenting the evidence, which is to "back up their beliefs."  Whether or not the evidence successfully backs up their beliefs according to your opinion is not inferred in any way.  

 

This is generally how people formulate theories or world views, they amass evidence and then based upon that evidence propose an explanation for those body of facts.  A theist could use such arguments as the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, fine tuning, the cosmological argument, the moral argument, etc. as evidence from a rational basis, which then would be discussed for it's merits.   

 

 

 

Glad to see you are branching out in to other forms of trolling.  I was worried that you might be a one trick pony.

 

 

I don't see you providing a single example where Christians successfully used evidence to demonstrate that Christianity is reasonable.  Perhaps they never have?  After 2000 years of trying and failing perhaps it is time to admit that for Christianity success is not possible?

[mymistake]

 

 

So you're the one who makes the snarky side remarks while others post substance relevant to the discussion?

 

Good to know who is who on this site.

 

 

Nope.  I'm the one who deals with the substance when there is substance to be found.

 

Care to step up to the Arena?

 

Care to step up to the Colosseum?

 

If you do then you won't be allowed to change the subject to non substance such as "emotional baggage" or your concerns for this forum's environment or the meaning of the word "to".

 

I still don't see you providing a single example of Christians successfully using evidence to demonstrate that Christianity is reasonable.  Perhaps it never happened in over 2000 years?

 

Remember, we don't care how many times they tried and failed.  We want to see the evidence that actually supports Christianity.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Well, Christians presented Constantine's mum, Helena, with the True Cross.  I heard all the pieces in total weigh more than a ton.  A big cross, that one. Then there's the head of John the Baptist.  When one wasn't enough, they produced more.  I lost count of how many there are. 

 

That's lots of evidence!

 

Sorry, just trolling.  I'll go back to watching it snow.

 

I did find one article that says that C-14 dating of bones in a reliquiary, said to be bones of the Baptist, put them in the 1st century:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/15/us-britain-bulgaria-bones-idUSBRE85E0U220120615

 

So ...

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Care to step up to the Arena?

 

Care to step up to the Colosseum?

Why would I do that?  

 

 

Because those sections have the rules and environment that you say you wish existed in the Lion's Den.  The Arena is for formal debate.  The Colosseum is less formal yet still serious.

 

Your complaints don't make sense.   You use personal attacks and fallacies to avoid debate.  Yet you complain that the Lion's Den should be like the Arena.  Yet you don't want to use the Arena.

 

 

 

 

Since you will not be supplying any examples of Christianity being demonstrated reasonable through evidence let's assume Thackerie was right until such an example shows up.

[bdp]

TrueScotsman, you're an idiot.  And on ignore.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

This is generally how people formulate theories or world views, they amass evidence and then based upon that evidence propose an explanation for those body of facts.  A theist could use such arguments as the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, fine tuning, the cosmological argument, the moral argument, etc. as evidence from a rational basis, which then would be discussed for it's merits.   

 

 

Maybe Jesus could go on TV and tell us about these things? Or host a State of Christianity address. Seems to me that a jealous and narcissistic God like the one in the bible would be all over TV.

 

 

 

 

As I said, I don't particularly want to spend time debating Molinism - or topics like it.  But if someone introduces it into the Den in a defense of standard Christian doctrine, as though it undermines the "ex-Christianity" of people who come to this site, then I consider it important to subject it to scrutiny.

 

  I also think it important to call someone out on attempts to reintroduce such topics as though no discussion had taken place before.  That's because people who come on here since the earlier discussion, and who may not be familiar with the topic, deserve to know that the reintroduced claim may not be as successful a defense of Christianity as its proponent says it is.

That's a reasonable response, that though the opponent quality might be low, it's simply an opportunity to state an argument for lurkers to enjoy.  

 

Calling out people for arguments made a year ago is a bit excessive though imo.

 

 

I kept on the YEC Christian Rayskidude's case for over eighteen months.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/user/4907-rayskidude/#.VMaVcP6sUuk

 

In the end I exposed him as a liar and he quit this forum shortly after.

 

Other members thanked me for doing this.

 

And I would do the same again in a nanosecond.

 

If you consider that a valuable use of your time, then sure.  

 

I do consider it a valuable use of my time if it helps even one person deconvert from Christianity, TS.

 

I have better things to do then refute YEC, which is perhaps the most easily falsified belief one can find.

 

The ease or difficulty involved isn't an issue for me, TS.  

So long as I'm helping those who need help... which is the function and purpose of this forum.   

 

 

Maybe you should try using your valuable time to help others... ?

 

In another forum perhaps.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

Even if a "serious believer" or someone capable of productive debate came here, their arguments would still be destroyed by the cold steel of logic.  I say bring it on, we're ready.

 

And if you don't like what we're doing here, there are plenty of other places you can spend your time.  Countless people benefit from our work and as long as xianity is out there fucking up people's lives we will continue.

 

If you noticed, I spend the majority of my time elsewhere.  Hence the 82 posts, most of which were made in my first period of time spent here under a different name.

 

 

Bye then.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Define "rational discussion".  I think you'll find it requires rationalism on both sides, not just ours.  Don't blame us for the weakness of our opponents.

 

Actually I do, because of the kind of environment you have fostered here.  Really poor quality of opponents is because of the rules of the forum.  I have seen much better arguments other places, for both sides.

 

 

Where have you seen these "better" arguments, particularly from the xian side?"  I think you are making things up.  You have zero credibility.

 

 

As I said, I don't particularly want to spend time debating Molinism - or topics like it.  But if someone introduces it into the Den in a defense of standard Christian doctrine, as though it undermines the "ex-Christianity" of people who come to this site, then I consider it important to subject it to scrutiny.

 

  I also think it important to call someone out on attempts to reintroduce such topics as though no discussion had taken place before.  That's because people who come on here since the earlier discussion, and who may not be familiar with the topic, deserve to know that the reintroduced claim may not be as successful a defense of Christianity as its proponent says it is.

That's a reasonable response, that though the opponent quality might be low, it's simply an opportunity to state an argument for lurkers to enjoy.  

 

Calling out people for arguments made a year ago is a bit excessive though imo.

 

 

Thank you for telling us how to do our work.  Gee, we've been doing it wrong all this time and should have been letting them off the hook after a certain time period, who knew?  Sorry dude, we hold them accountable for as long as is necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

I kept on the YEC Christian Rayskidude's case for over eighteen months.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/user/4907-rayskidude/#.VMaVcP6sUuk

 

In the end I exposed him as a liar and he quit this forum shortly after.

 

Other members thanked me for doing this.

 

And I would do the same again in a nanosecond.

 

If you consider that a valuable use of your time, then sure.  I have better things to do then refute YEC, which is perhaps the most easily falsified belief one can find.

 

 

Thank you again, for appointing yourself judge of how other people use their time.  How about reflecting on how you use your own time?  Twice you have said you were leaving this conversation, btw.

 

Duderonomy (rightly) called you condescending.  I would add arrogant and sanctimonious, tending towards narcissistic.

[mwc]

     Like dogs with a bone.

 

          mwc

[Ravenstar]

What the hell is this all about?  Pages of what?… an opinion about a section that's sole purpose is for christians to be able to come, try their lame explanations, preaching, apologetics and basically ancient, and I would say mostly refuted, arguments for their nasty blood cult, and expose their throats to the Lions, (with fair warning I might add) so that our other forums are safe for our members to discuss all kinds of issues that have to do with being an ex-christian.

 

From what I understand this forum's main purpose is to support ex and deconverting christians… pretty sure webmdave has made this perfectly clear.

 

BAA and others understand just how insidious christian propaganda can be and have taken it upon themselves to expose hypocrisy, lies and the disingenuous when it/they happens here… for the benefit of the members and lurkers… and do it quite properly here in the Den… I, for one, support them completely in this endeavour and applaud their honesty, patience and tenacity.

 

what's the problem again?

 

Seriously?

 

No one is forced to be here...

[mymistake]

 

 

What would I debate in the Arena?

 

 

 

 

Anything you want.

[midniterider]

No one is forced to be here...

 

I think that is the bottom line.

 

There are thousands of web forums of every variety. Sometimes I visit them when I get bored here.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

So you're the one who makes the snarky side remarks while others post substance relevant to the discussion?

 

Good to know who is who on this site.

 

 

Nope.  I'm the one who deals with the substance when there is substance to be found.

 

Mmkay

 

 

Care to step up to the Arena?

 

Care to step up to the Colosseum?

Why would I do that?  You clearly don't understand who I am.

 

 

 

If you do then you won't be allowed to change the subject to non substance such as "emotional baggage" or your concerns for this forum's environment or the meaning of the word "to".

Wait, in a formal debate it's not appropriate to highlight the mechanics of how grammar influences the way we understand a statement?

 

Weird.

 

 

 

I still don't see you providing a single example of Christians successfully using evidence to demonstrate that Christianity is reasonable.  Perhaps it never happened in over 2000 years?

Where did I say that I would be supplying that?

 

 

 

Remember, we don't care how many times they tried and failed.  We want to see the evidence that actually supports Christianity.

Cool.  Go ask a Christian.

 

Perhaps you could take some lessons from former member SteveBennet on how to control a thread, even one that you didn't start.  He was a master...at least he thought so.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think it is telling that TrueScatMan keeps coming back to remind us that he doesn't care what we think about him... yet he keeps coming back... and responding.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Well heck, I've been in another forum defending my comment that maybe light doesn't travel at the constant speed c ,even in a vacuum.  

 

 

 

 But then again,  according to my sources,'s' light might be able to travel faster than c.  

 

 

Justus,

 

Please provide a link to this 'other' forum, so that we may see what you've written there.

 

Please also supply links to the (accredited and peer-reviewed) source/s which state that light might be able to travel faster than c.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

[bornagainathiest]

I think it is telling that TrueScatMan keeps coming back to remind us that he doesn't care what we think about him... yet he keeps coming back... and responding.

 

Worst case of C.LA.W.S that I've seen in a long time.

[bornagainathiest]

We (the Ex-Christian and non Christian members) patiently wait for the Christians to re-appear in the Den.

.

.

.

AN APPEAL FOR JUSTUS

The Redneck Prof patiently waits for Justus to discuss evolution (not abiogenesis) with him, having first asked on 31 Dec (three times) and then again on Jan 2, 5 and 7.

 

THE FAITH PROBLEM

The Redneck Prof patiently waits for Ordinaryclay to cite the hard data he uses to formulate his Teleological argument.

 

THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD

Ficino patiently waits for Ordinaryclay to respond to his criticism of Molinism.

 

ORDINARYCLAY : DISHONEST AND CONFUSED

Ficino patiently waits for Ordinaryclay to respond to him in this thread. 

 

 

THIS THREAD

I patiently wait for 1AcceptingAthiest1 (a.k.a. A1 Steak sauce) to respond to my Jan 24 post which (once again) destroyed his justification of God ordering the Israelites to eradicate the Amalekites.

 

THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD

I patiently wait for Ironhorse to respond to my Jan 26 post, where I demonstrated a direct contradiction between the books of Job and 1 Timothy and therefore also demonstrated that the Bible is unreliable and untrustworthy. 

.

.

.

 

We all patiently wait for Ironhorse to specify exactly what body of empirical (i.e., non-scriptural) evidence he uses to support his faith - so that we may examine and question it.

.

.

.

And so we wait.

 

And so we (continue) to wait.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

*Passes coffee to BAA*

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Well, Christians presented Constantine's mum, Helena, with the True Cross.  I heard all the pieces in total weigh more than a ton.  A big cross, that one. Then there's the head of John the Baptist.  When one wasn't enough, they produced more.  I lost count of how many there are. 

 

That's lots of evidence!

 

Sorry, just trolling.  I'll go back to watching it snow.

 

I did find one article that says that C-14 dating of bones in a reliquiary, said to be bones of the Baptist, put them in the 1st century:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/15/us-britain-bulgaria-bones-idUSBRE85E0U220120615

 

So ...

When you were a Christian were these the kind of arguments you made or found convincing?

 

I assume you mean the argument suggested by the linked report and not my BS-ing around in the first paragraph.

 

I had been brought up in a religious home and for the most part just accepted that God does miracles all the time.  So I didn't have problems with the claims of Christianity until later.  When I was a Christian, I would have enjoyed the thought that C14 testing confirmed the age of the bones in the reliquiary, though I wasn't so dumb as to think that such a test would have confirmed that they were bones of JtB. 

[bornagainathiest]

*Accepts coffee kindly offered by FTNZ* 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

We (the Ex-Christian and non Christian members) patiently wait for the Christians to re-appear in the Den.

.

.

.

AN APPEAL FOR JUSTUS

The Redneck Prof patiently waits for Justus to discuss evolution (not abiogenesis) with him, having first asked on 31 Dec (three times) and then again on Jan 2, 5 and 7.

 

THE FAITH PROBLEM

The Redneck Prof patiently waits for Ordinaryclay to cite the hard data he uses to formulate his Teleological argument.

 

THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD

Ficino patiently waits for Ordinaryclay to respond to his criticism of Molinism.

 

ORDINARYCLAY : DISHONEST AND CONFUSED

Ficino patiently waits for Ordinaryclay to respond to him in this thread. 

 

 

THIS THREAD

I patiently wait for 1AcceptingAthiest1 (a.k.a. A1 Steak sauce) to respond to my Jan 24 post which (once again) destroyed his justification of God ordering the Israelites to eradicate the Amalekites.

 

THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD

I patiently wait for Ironhorse to respond to my Jan 26 post, where I demonstrated a direct contradiction between the books of Job and 1 Timothy and therefore also demonstrated that the Bible is unreliable and untrustworthy. 

.

.

.

 

We all patiently wait for Ironhorse to specify exactly what body of empirical (i.e., non-scriptural) evidence he uses to support his faith - so that we may examine and question it.

.

.

.

And so we wait.

 

And so we (continue) to wait.

 

 

Re-bumped for A1.  

 

(In red, for your attention.)

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

Baa. I will re read if I need to because I was Gone for 3weeks but I will address briefly

 

I do not mean for the sole purpose of knowing the future itself is the reason why God is more moral than Nazis

 

I'm saying because of the result if the future. God had a reason for doing what he did the Nazis did not.

 

 

If you knew by letting a robber leave the grocery store he would kill 1000 people in a mall. You would not have been so nice to let him leave.

 

God knew ahead of time of the horrible things that Ameikltes would have done to other people

 

Nazis killing people who did nothing *wrong* *and* on top of that who they didn't know if those people would have done anything horrible like killing more people.

 

Kill to stop more killing is what police do.

 

Kill just because....is selfish

 

That's difference between Nazis and God

 

I see, A1.

 

God had a reason for doing what he did and the Nazi did not.

 

So, if the Nazis had a good reason for doing what they did, they would be just as moral as God?

 

Is that what you're saying?

.

.

.

And God's 'good reason' was to kill to stop future killing...?

 

Then why didn't God kill Cain, to stop Cain killing Abel?

 

Why didn't God kill Doeg the Edomite?

To stop him killing 85 of God's own priests, the men and women of the town of Nob, it's children and infants, it's cattle and donkeys and sheep?  

 

None of these had done any harm to King Saul or Doeg.

 

And if you read 1 Samuel 22: 17 you'll see that none of King Saul's other officials raised a hand against the priests - because they knew this was a sinful and evil thing to do.

 

Saul and Doeg were clearly doing wrong ... why didn't God stop them?

 

 

lol do you sovle all math problems the same way? 

God had a specific reason why does his action for each event, it would be inaccurate to project his response and reason for one event and say that should be the cornerstone response to all events that he responses to.

 

in This Sauls scenario yes God didnt Kill him, but do you think he got away Scott free?/haha i dont think so...1 Samuel 16:14

 

Saul then reconciled with David later on, so perhaps there was a PURPOSE to why God didnt kill him  1 Samuel 16:21–23

[mymistake]

I think A1 is too cool to get into serious genocide justification.  He knows to not go there.  He might make excuses to save face but ya just can't justify genocide.

[midniterider]

 

lol do you sovle all math problems the same way? 

God had a specific reason why does his action for each event, it would be inaccurate to project his response and reason for one event and say that should be the cornerstone response to all events that he responses to.

 

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - 1 Sam 15:3

 

Praise the Lord and his specific reason for killing women, infants and children.

 

(sarcasm)

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Baa. I will re read if I need to because I was Gone for 3weeks but I will address briefly

 

I do not mean for the sole purpose of knowing the future itself is the reason why God is more moral than Nazis

 

I'm saying because of the result if the future. God had a reason for doing what he did the Nazis did not.

 

 

If you knew by letting a robber leave the grocery store he would kill 1000 people in a mall. You would not have been so nice to let him leave.

 

God knew ahead of time of the horrible things that Ameikltes would have done to other people

 

Nazis killing people who did nothing *wrong* *and* on top of that who they didn't know if those people would have done anything horrible like killing more people.

 

Kill to stop more killing is what police do.

 

Kill just because....is selfish

 

That's difference between Nazis and God

 

I see, A1.

 

God had a reason for doing what he did and the Nazi did not.

 

So, if the Nazis had a good reason for doing what they did, they would be just as moral as God?

 

Is that what you're saying?

.

.

.

And God's 'good reason' was to kill to stop future killing...?

 

Then why didn't God kill Cain, to stop Cain killing Abel?

 

Why didn't God kill Doeg the Edomite?

To stop him killing 85 of God's own priests, the men and women of the town of Nob, it's children and infants, it's cattle and donkeys and sheep?  

 

None of these had done any harm to King Saul or Doeg.

 

And if you read 1 Samuel 22: 17 you'll see that none of King Saul's other officials raised a hand against the priests - because they knew this was a sinful and evil thing to do.

 

Saul and Doeg were clearly doing wrong ... why didn't God stop them?

 

 

lol do you sovle all math problems the same way? 

God had a specific reason why does his action for each event, it would be inaccurate to project his response and reason for one event and say that should be the cornerstone response to all events that he responses to.

 

Then you have backpedaled from your earlier position A1, where you said that God kills to prevent further killing.

Now you're saying that this isn't necessarily the case and that each scenario where God kills or orders killing needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis.  

 

You've already given reasons why the Amalekites had to be eradicated.  

So now would you please give the reasons why God didn't intervene to prevent the Massacre of the Innocents by King Herod the Great, as described in Matthew 2 : 16 -18?

 

in This Sauls scenario yes God didnt Kill him, but do you think he got away Scott free?/haha i dont think so...1 Samuel 16:14

 

Saul then reconciled with David later on, so perhaps there was a PURPOSE to why God didnt kill him  1 Samuel 16:21–23

 

This is wrong, A1.

The massacre of the 85 priests and the all the people of the village of Nob by Doeg the Edomite (at King Saul's command) happened AFTER 1 Samuel 16, in chapter 22. So the torment Saul suffered and his reconciliation with David cannot be the reasons why God allowed those innocent Israelites to be slaughtered.

 

 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I love it when the ex-c knows the details in the bible better than the xian does.

 

It's not surprising though... many of us became ex-cs from studying the bible.

 

Xians: brush up on your bible knowledge, if you want to keep up with us (let alone debate us).