New Christian Visitor

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, aik said:

I agree. You are good. But many of you here say that you skeptics base your saying only on facts, you require that I give you objective evidences. And when it comes to your side, you predict. And call it a fact. Is it fair?

This is a false representation.  I'm sure you understand that there are a number of differences between making a positive claim and making a prediction based upon historical data.  A positive claim is one in which you are presenting something as a fact that others should accept.  This requires you to satisfy the burden of proof; and, if your goal is for others to accept your claim as fact, that means providing objective evidence that everyone can test for themselves.  A prediction based on historical data already has evidence, in the form of historical data.  It is not a positive claim being put forth as fact, but rather an estimated, educated guess, already having sufficient support to justify it.  As of yet, no one is expected to accept as fact that you will eventually claim special revelation; but it has happened often enough in this community that we can predict it with reasonable accuracy.  

 

Это ложное представление. Я уверен, что вы понимаете, что существует ряд различий между положительным утверждением и предсказанием, основанным на исторических данных. Положительное утверждение — это заявление, в котором вы представляете что-то как факт, который другие должны принять. Это требует от вас выполнения бремени доказывания; и, если ваша цель состоит в том, чтобы другие приняли ваше утверждение как факт, это означает предоставление объективных доказательств, которые каждый может проверить сам. Прогноз, основанный на исторических данных , уже имеет доказательства в виде исторических данных. Это не положительное утверждение, выдвигаемое как факт, а скорее оценочное, обоснованное предположение, уже имеющее достаточную поддержку, чтобы оправдать его. На данный момент никто не ожидает, что вы примете как факт то, что вы в конечном итоге будете претендовать на особое откровение; но это случалось в нашем сообществе достаточно часто, чтобы мы могли предсказать его с достаточной точностью.

[aik]

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The only thing that can be said is that neither myself nor the donkey are Russian.  Logic does not really apply here beyond, yet another, example of the Begging the Question logical fallacy.  The implication of your question is that if I am not Russian and the Donkey is not Russian, then I must be the Donkey.  A very polite way of pointing out that I'm an ass; but not really relevant to the progression of logic we are following concerning your religious claims.

Be honest. The implication comes out of your logic? Am I right? I never wanted to call you a donkey. But I put these two words together to show you and others your double standards which I think plays role when you try to convince yourself that there is no God, no Jesus. And I have shown it already. Now do you agree with me my friend?

[walterpthefirst]

21 minutes ago, aik said:

I agree. You are good. But many of you here say that you skeptics base your saying only on facts, you require that I give you objective evidences. And when it comes to your side, you predict. And call it a fact. Is it fair?

 

aik,

 

In this forum all members, Christian or otherwise, are equal and the rules and guidelines apply to all members equally.

 

No member, Christian or otherwise, is exempt from this.  Even if they think they are.

 

Below is the guideline on supporting claims with evidence.  A guideline that applies to all members, equally.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83166-a-notice-to-christians-visiting-the-lions-den/#comments

 

It was written as a notice to Christians because some Christians don't think this guideline applies to them.

 

But it does apply to all members.  Including Christians.

 

Therefore, if any member, Christian or otherwise, makes a claim they will be asked to support it with evidence.

 

Our persistent requests for evidence from you are simply the result of you not providing any.

 

Please provide evidence to support your claims that is objective, relevant and reliable.

 

It is your obligation to do this as a member of this forum.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, aik said:

Be honest. The implication comes out of your logic? Am I right? I never wanted to call you a donkey. But I put these two words together to show you and others your double standards which I think plays role when you try to convince yourself that there is no God, no Jesus. And I have shown it already. Now do you agree with me my friend?

I do not agree with you, moy droog.  There is no logical connection between myself, the donkey, and Russia.  As I already explained, the scenario is little more than logical fallacy.  Actually, since you mentioned it again, Begging the Question is only the main logical fallacy employed.  As I indicated, it was also a very polite, and quite clever, ad hominem, with just a touch of Tu quoque.  So, if logic sells for 20 rubles per kilo, then you certainly got your money's worth of logical fallacies out of this deal.

 

There are no double standards being applied here.  As I said, you are misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding our position.  I'm not sure if you are intentionally conflating positive claims with predictions or if you genuinely do not understand the difference between the two.  But, to put it in terms you may better understand:  There is objective evidence for the existence of myself, the donkey, and Russia; so far, none has been presented for your god.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

50 minutes ago, aik said:

In Russia we sell 1 kilo of logic for 20 rubles.

Have you ever wondered why Russian logic sells so cheap?

[aik]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Have you ever wondered why Russian logic sells so cheap?

I know why it is so cheap

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, aik said:

I know why it is so cheap

As do I, moy droog.

[walterpthefirst]

Here is a simple, multiple choice question for you, aik.

 

 

A )  Walter lives on a farm.

 

B )  Walter lives in an apartment block.

 

C )  Walter lives in an old cottage.

 

D )  Walter lives in a single-storey house.

 

E )  Walter lives in a canal boat.

 

 

I have given you no evidence to help you choose which one is true true.

 

 

Which one is true, aik?

 

 

 

 

[aik]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As do I, moy droog.

Because it can be destroyed as 

 

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

Here is a simple, multiple choice question for you, aik.

 

 

A )  Walter lives on a farm.

 

B )  Walter lives in an apartment block.

 

C )  Walter lives in an old cottage.

 

D )  Walter lives in a single-storey house.

 

E )  Walter lives in a canal boat.

 

 

I have given you no evidence to help you choose which one is true true.

 

 

Which one is true, aik?

 

 

 

 

Play this game with @TheRedneckProfessor he likes it. I have no time for kids.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, aik said:

Because it can be destroyed as 

 

Play this game with @TheRedneckProfessor he likes it. I have no time for kids.

 

This is no game, aik.

 

Without evidence you cannot tell which option is true.

 

In the same way, without evidence from you, we cannot tell if you are telling the truth.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

But here is a serious question for you aik.

 

 

As a member of this forum do you intend to abide by its rules and guidelines?

 

 

Yes or No?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Here is another child's game for you, then, @aik.  There is a valid relationship between christianity (A) and Buddhism (C).  That relationship is that neither of their respective founders claimed to be starting a religion (B).  Now, according to your standard, jesus did not claim to be starting a new religion, therefore christianity is not a religion (B).  But since the Buddha also did not claim to be starting a new religion, Buddhism is also not a religion (B), by that same standard.  Claiming otherwise is simply "Special Pleading". 

 

Now, let's look at the Donkey and myself:  Is there a similar relationship between me (A), the Donkey (C) and Russia (B)?  Not really, other than that neither myself nor the donkey are Russian.  This is why the same logical principle does not apply here; and why your claim that a double standard is being applied is false.  Now do you understand?

 

Вот тебе еще одна детская игра, @aik. Существует действительная связь между христианством (А) и буддизмом (С). Эта связь заключается в том, что ни один из их основателей не утверждал, что основывает религию (B). Теперь, согласно вашим стандартам, Иисус не претендовал на создание новой религии, поэтому христианство не является религией (Б). Но поскольку Будда также не претендовал на создание новой религии, буддизм также не является религией (Б) по тому же стандарту. Заявление об обратном - это просто «особое заявление».

Теперь давайте посмотрим на Ослика и меня: есть ли подобные отношения между мной (А), Ослом (С) и Россией (Б)? Не совсем, кроме того, что ни я, ни осел не русские. Вот почему тот же логический принцип здесь неприменим; и почему ваше утверждение о применении двойных стандартов является ложным. Теперь ты понимаешь?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, aik said:

In Russia we sell 1 kilo of logic for 20 rubles. 

 

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Have you ever wondered why Russian logic sells so cheap?

 

29 minutes ago, aik said:

I know why it is so cheap

 

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As do I, moy droog.

 

19 minutes ago, aik said:

Because it can be destroyed

Yes, one of the reasons that Russian logic sells so cheap is because it is so easy to destroy; but another reason Russian logic sells so cheap is because logic is not a commodity that Russians use very much.  Lack of demand drives the price down; it's the nature of capitalism.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Perhaps dementia has taken over my brain.  For some reason I am having a very hard time following this conversation.  It seems almost like a word salad.

[midniterider]

10 hours ago, Weezer said:

Perhaps dementia has taken over my brain.  For some reason I am having a very hard time following this conversation.  It seems almost like a word salad.

 

It probably has to do with teaching the lurkers something about our evidence based way of thinking. 

[older]

I don’t post in these discussions — I tried a couple of times but the Christians ignored my questions; probably because the Christians would have to admit to the flaws in their belief system.

 

But I’ve decided to post this:

 

What I see from Christians is that they believe in a god who exists everywhere, knows everything and has unlimited power. Further, this god loves everyone (But only if you love him back. Otherwise he’ll send you to an eternity of misery, suffering and torture.). And as someone once wrote, this god sent himself to earth and then killed himself in order to avenge himself for a curse that he put on us because one of our distant ancestors ate fruit off a magical tree after being told to do it by a talking snake.

 

What I see is overwhelming evidence that this god cannot exist. Below I will provide my evidence.

 

I do not claim that this god does not exist. My position is that the evidence argues against it and I follow the evidence. There is a difference in those two positions.

 

It is impossible to prove that gods do not exist. Those who frequent these spaces are familiar with Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy about a teapot orbiting the sun. (And with all the junk we’ve left in space, there could be such an item!) But if someone wants me to accept as fact that there is a teapot orbiting the sun, the claimant will need to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Please note that it is the claimant that has the burden of proof. It is not my responsibility to disprove the claim.

 

My position on the Christian god, then, is based on the preponderance of the evidence. I have seen overwhelming evidence that the god in Christian theology cannot exist as described. In order for my view to change, there would have to be more evidence in favor of this god than there is against. And that evidence would have to be tangible, testable, independently verifiable evidence, overwhelming in both quantity and quality.

 

First, here is a link to a video of Stephen Fry, the English actor and broadcaster, whose comments capture my position far better than I could state. Please take the two minutes to watch:

 

 

 

I wrote above that I would provide tangible, testable, independently verifiable, evidence, overwhelming in both quantity and quality, to support my position that the Christian god cannot exist. I have assembled a sample of photographs that support Stephen Fry’s statements in the video.

 

There are 22 photos in the set. If that’s not enough, just let me know and I’ll find as many as you want. A hundred, a thousand, just let me know. When you go to the site, click “Next,” the top right link, to go through the set. (Trigger warning: These are graphic images of children with physical deformities.)

 

And do not just click through, but stop and look. Look at all 22 photographs. And then come back here with your evidence that the Christian god, who can do anything but doesn’t, is a kind, loving deity worth my respect and worship.

 

Here is the link to my evidence:

http://zimmer.fresnostate.edu/~gregl/evidence/images/page1.html

[Edgarcito]

Y’all killed another one… 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Y’all killed another one… 

No he's busy at work. We gotta try n keep this one for a bit. He's actually a Christian I think. 

 

DB

[◊ Weezer ◊]

37 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

No he's busy at work. We gotta try n keep this one for a bit. He's actually a Christian I think. 

 

DB

I agree, but it sounds like some special brand of Christianity, but then I guess that is not too unusual.  

 

23 hours ago, Weezer said:

Perhaps dementia has taken over my brain.  For some reason I am having a very hard time following this conversation.  It seems almost like a word salad.

I said that with tongue in cheek, but even some of our locals can at times make simple things seem extremely complicated.  They get sidetracked on splitting hairs, when sticking to some simple basics would suffice.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, older said:

 

First, here is a link to a video of Stephen Fry, the English actor and broadcaster, whose comments capture my position far better than I could state. Please take the two minutes to watch:

 

 

 

Thanks for posting that video.  He very well expressed my thinking on the subject.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

I said that with tongue in cheek, but even some of our locals can at times make simple things seem extremely complicated.  They get sidetracked on splitting hairs, when sticking to some simple basics would suffice.  

Perhaps if some of our more simple and basic members would show up more often, the bulk of the burden wouldn't constantly fall upon us hair-splitters.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Y’all killed another one… 

You stood idly by watching and not lifting a finger to help him... how christ-like.

[older]

It’s three o’clock in the morning and I’m awake and feeling like George Carlin — angry. I’ve decided that the 22 photos linked to my post above are not enough. Twenty-two out of tens of thousands is not enough. The photographs taken by Lewis Hine in the early 20th century of children working in coal mines and cotton mills are not enough. The photographs by W. Eugene Smith of the children deformed beyond belief and condemned to the life of a vegetable because of mercury pollution in Minamata, Japan, are not enough. The video I saw at a professional photojournalism conference in the 1980s of children working in a sulfur mine, coughing and gagging because of the fumes, is not enough. The photographs you can find of children working in coal mines today in Afghanistan are not enough.

 

So here is one more set. (Trigger warning: These are very graphic photos of death.) Photographer Margaret Bourke White was one of the first to enter the Buchenwald concentration camp when it was liberated at the end of World War II. I dare you, I dare anyone, to look at these images, look slowly, stop at each one and consider what is seen, and then come back here and tell me that the Christian god is a kind, loving deity who can do anything he wants. And then try to make excuses for why he didn’t stop this. And then try to make excuses for why he doesn’t step in and stop the starvation and sickness and misery and slow painful death that continues throughout the world today. Do it. I dare you.

 

http://zimmer.fresnostate.edu/~gregl/Buchenwald/images/page1.html

[older]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps if some of our more simple and basic members would show up more often, the bulk of the burden wouldn't constantly fall upon us hair-splitters.

  

Well hair splitting can be fun, and some of you enjoy playing the chess game of semantics, logic, and philosophy with our Christian friends. I had some doubts about posting, and I apologize for stepping in and pouring black paint onto the chess board.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, older said:

  

Well hair splitting can be fun, and some of you enjoy playing the chess game of semantics, logic, and philosophy with our Christian friends. I had some doubts about posting, and I apologize for stepping in and pouring black paint onto the chess board.

No, no.  There's no need to apologize.  I was just giving Weezer a little hell.  On the contrary, your post is very much appreciated.  I always enjoyed that interview clip with Stephen Frye and the overall content of your post is a very concise and condensed rendering of several of our threads here lately.  I should warn you, though, some of our more sensitive members might take issue with you posting deliberately graphic images here.  Not me, though.  I think it's good to provide visual aids to underscore certain discrepancies in the christian message.