Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[Dent]

Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 1, Morning, 1st Session - YouTube

Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 1, Morning, 1st Session - YouTube

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Hello my little lost children. I had a nice hiatus.

I came here to say that Repug, having posted a video between Sam Harris and Dr. Lane Craig, probably the most dishonest religious apologist master debater of all time, is proof that Repugnant Abomination has become a religious apologist in full.

I posted that clip not because I agree with Dr. Lane Craig, but because Sam Harris was so completely owned simply because he could not stick to the premise of the debate. That tends to be your problem too, ironically, making "debating" you a maddening waste of time. But no, I'm sad to report I am not a religious apologist.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Repugnant Abomination is still not likely to admit this to himself. Personally, I would like this confession from him; it would be less cowardly than to hide in the grey curtains of philosophy and not take a stand for what he currently believes in.

Admit what? That I don't know? That I'm open to multiple epistemological paths of knowledge, even though I freely admit none are quite as satisfying as empiricism?

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

A minor psych evaluation is in order here. I am disappointed that I have to bring up a rather hurtful point of his past, but most of us here know about about Repug's family issues, the great loss he suffered, and the religious insanity he has been put through in the past with his fundamentalist blood relatives.

This, of course, spurred Repug down the path of the militant atheist, which he kept up for a few years. As this wiley, intellectual rebel was tamed by a young female who he recently decided to marry (another major life event that likely brought to life a certain ignored spirituality), he began to think himself all the more of the armchair philosopher.

Yeah, I suffered a great loss, and sure, my family has some odd religious beliefs, and yes, this did lead me to question life more than I ever did before. But I became an atheist because I was emotional--angry, more than anything. It made sense at the time but in retrospect was too simplistic. That's not to say atheism is too simplistic, but rather the way in which I arrived at it was. But you're way off in equating marriage with a "taming" of my intellect. She's challenged my ways of thinking since we met and has been agnostic since I've known her. You've always looked negatively on relationships, as if they somehow make you weak, and I think that's a mistake.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Repug currently resides in a rather poetic realm of spiritual purgatory. He is more afraid of death than he would ever admit publicly, and this fear now rules his life and his worldview. He is convinced that there has to be some sort of higher power in the universe because this fear of dying is so strong in him.

Gosh, I always learn so much about myself from a Mr. Blonde post. Please tell me more aout myself.

I've never been shy about my fear of death, privately or publicly. All you're doing here is smearing my character, rather than my arguments, the true sign of a weak debater.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

It's so strong that it has caused him to eschew physical evidence in regard to this higher power (or lack thereof) entirely, based on his comments in this thread. I have already tried to tell him that anything that affects the physical world (as a deity would have to do) would (eventually) be able to be detected by physical instruments, thus falling under the realm of physical science.

Repug has made it clear that he disagrees with this entirely, and that philosophy is the only thing that can answer god questions, which is rather silly, as we are, after all, merely high-thinking apes.

Rationalism is not the only way to answer the God question, it's one way to. It can be used to try and prove or disprove God. A lot of smart men have attempted both. You keep trying to define me but you keep failing, because all you're doing is cutting down a dumb-downed version of me that exists only in your head.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Repug will likely refute the idea that he is an apologist, or that he now believes in a higher power, preferring to hide behind the repeated claims of "I'm just saying that SCIENCE doesn't have all the answers!!! I'm not saying there is a god, I'm just saying, YOU NEVER KNOW, GUYS and also I don't believe atheism is the correct position anymore, which would, by default, make me a form of theist.

Apologist can be a confusing term, because it sounds like you're apologizing for something. The real definition is someone who argues in defense of something controversial. By that definition it sounds like we both are. But with how you're using the term I'd say neither of us are. You just seem to get stuck on the fact that if someone doesn't agree with you not only are they wrong, but they are a God worshiping, science denying creationist. It really does just seem to be a lack of clear, critical thinking on your part, which is why I'm more exasperated than anything else. I think that the fundamental position you're taking is probably correct, from a probability standpoint, but the way in which you've gotten there is rather shallow.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

It does not really bother me what Repug, or really anyone believes, as much, anymore, due to an experience I will relate elsewhere. I almost pity Repug, in a very Thomas Aquinas way, because of the absolutely rationally indefensible position of theists everywhere, the religious apologists have such a larger burden to bear, and have to do so much more work to try and make square pegs fit into circle holes. This will always happen when you believe in something emotionally so much, that you desperately claw your way around intellectually to make the worldview you want to adequately fit within the parameters of actual, observable, reality.

I pity this imaginary Repug too But you really shouldn't knock emotional people, since you're probably the most emotionally volatile person I know.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

TL;DR - Repug is now a religious apologist who believes in a higher power because: philosophy. He in this way chosen to align himself only with pro-theism philosophers and seems to completely ignore the many atheistic or agnostic philosophers and the points they have made. He no longer has any regard for physical evidence (or lack thereof) in regard to "the god question", and, I should also note, he has not responded to my messages on Facebook to attempt to bridge this belief gap and put it behind us. Thus, sadly, Repug and I can no longer be friends. He is married, well on his way to being a believer, and quite clearly thinks that Nubblites are not "on his level", although he will probably deny this as well.

Oh the webs you have spun. I was pretty hurt when you deleted me, but honestly, it's probably for the best. You are such an emotional person that it's exhausting dealing with your outburst and overwhelming negativity towards most things. Your life sounds like a total wreck 85% of the time and I think it's pretty clear at this point you're dealing with some mental health, or at the very least emotional health issues. I hope you get it together, but in the meantime I think I'm okay with our new status quo.

[ninjaface]

So Mr. Blonde is going to hell?

[Mr. Blonde]

Before I answer to Repug, it's just coincidence that I came her to post this today. The video you posted with "Sam Harris getting owned" has no ratings allowed and no top comments allowed. I'm frankly surprised even comments were allowed on it.

The original video, shown here, allows both of those things. Note the different title.

The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig - YouTube

The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig - YouTube

Also, this --

Sandy Hook Massacre - William Lane Craig, PhD - YouTube

Sandy Hook Massacre - William Lane Craig, PhD - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

Gosh, I always learn so much about myself from a Mr. Blonde post. Please tell me more aout myself.

I've never been shy about my fear of death, privately or publicly. All you're doing here is smearing my character, rather than my arguments, the true sign of a weak debater.

You actually haven't been forthcoming at all about your personal life and how it has affected your change of beliefs over the past several years, so yes, actually, you have been very shy about your motives here. You're also "smearing my character" rather than addressing what I said and acknowledging how it has affected you, by calling me a "weak debater". You're making the same mistakes you're accusing me of.

Rationalism is not the only way to answer the God question, it's one way to. It can be used to try and prove or disprove God. A lot of smart men have attempted both. You keep trying to define me but you keep failing, because all you're doing is cutting down a dumb-downed version of me that exists only in your head.

Then you need to post more in-length and post more to make sense, and explain things as a teacher would, instead of assuming everyone has read and understood the same things you have. I try to explain myself and my ways of thinking very clearly. You do not.

It really does just seem to be a lack of clear, critical thinking on your part, which is why I'm more exasperated than anything else. I think that the fundamental position you're taking is probably correct, from a probability standpoint, but the way in which you've gotten there is rather shallow.

Even if I grant you this (which I don't, entirely), is this not a very similar path to atheism that you went down, several years before me? Does that not mean anything to you, or now that you've supposedly "philosophically ascended", everyone below you is now a dumbass? Because that's what you sound like -- which is ironic, as we are both accusing each other of that.

But you really shouldn't knock emotional people, since you're probably the most emotionally volatile person I know.

I highly doubt that, I'm probably just more open and honest about my emotions than most people. Nice, though...including this:

You are such an emotional person that it's exhausting dealing with your outburst and overwhelming negativity towards most things. Your life sounds like a total wreck 85% of the time and I think it's pretty clear at this point you're dealing with some mental health, or at the very least emotional health issues. I hope you get it together, but in the meantime I think I'm okay with our new status quo.

Is just in-general a low-blow and, if you really do believe I'm a "weak debater", you have just sunk to the exact same level. You didn't like my critique against you previously and felt like making some personal stabs to affect me on an emotional level. Something I can't really blame you for, but it is, ultimately, you attempting to "take me down a few pegs" to feel better about yourself. I suppose you could argue I was doing that in the post before with my psycho-analysis of you, but, again, it just means that you haven't won anything here but equal grounding. You're no more emotionally mature than myself, it seems.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Dawkins on religion - General - Al Jazeera English

One of the more intelligent discussions concerning all of this, though I do wish the interviewer would've held Dawkin's feet to the fire a little more concerning concepts outside the scope of science. But why I like this one is because rather than appeal emotionally to people that "religion is bad because suicide bombers!" they go deeper, to the questions of how we know anything to begin with.

[Mr. Blonde]

Dave Silverman is making some progress with how he handles FOX. I'm usually somewhat disappointed with the things he says (or doesn't say) on the network, but of course it's not like the hosts make it easy on liberals anyways. In this one, he said everything I hoped he would in response. Very well done IMO.

David Silverman Makes Hannity Pout At Christmastime! Santa not pleased... - YouTube

David Silverman Makes Hannity Pout At Christmastime! Santa not pleased... - YouTube

[Ugly Bastard]

That was nice. I like that Silverman guy.

[Saint DH]

I don't. He clearly has a poor understanding of religion and frequently talks down to those who have faith, as most atheists do. This causes religious people to get defensive and automatically walls their minds off from any chance of persuasion. This fact is one of the main reasons why the atheist community will never penetrate the minds of the masses.

[Mr. Blonde]

It is you who has a poor misunderstanding of his intent. Dave Silverman is the president of American Atheists. He's not out to convince the religious that they're wrong; the mere fact there are so many incompatible religions should answer that question for you.

American Atheist's main goal is religious equality (it is unconstitutional for our government to make Christmas a national holiday without making every other religious holiday a national holiday -- they should change the name for the 25th off), and showing atheists that it's "okay" to come out.

Despite what Hannity says, if you think that there aren't at least hundreds of thousands of people in America (or more) who don't really believe, but go to church/act like they do for family/social reasons, you are highly mistaken. There are even many priests and pastors who have made a career out of religion, who have lost their faith and are wracked with what would happen if they were honest about their changed beliefs. The Clergy Project - Home Page

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

This fact is one of the main reasons why the atheist community will never penetrate the minds of the masses.

never been to Europe?

[Saint DH]

I give no regard subhuman scum in any statement I make about people unless I directly address the scum.

[Saint DH]

> Be at McDonalds at 1230 on Friday afternoon.
> Fucking dirty people with their pieces of shit children everywhere
> No one is in work clothes
> Realize that America is a shithole full of subhuman scum
> Hate the world

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

This fact is one of the main reasons why the atheist community will never penetrate the minds of the masses.

DH, it appears that many people in older nations have become much more nonreligious, like in Europe.

Also, it's growing. I would be real interested to see how religious America looks in 30 years. These things take time, hombre.

Non-religious Americans now one-fifth of the population, according to Pew survey.

[Saint DH]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

DH, it appears that many people in older nations have become much more nonreligious, like in Europe.

Also, it's growing. I would be real interested to see how religious America looks in 30 years. These things take time, hombre.

Non-religious Americans now one-fifth of the population, according to Pew survey.

Yes it is growing, though I would be curious as to how much of that growth is the result of this organization and others like it.

For me personally, becoming agnostic wasn't the result of influence from others, but from living during this time and seeing horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion, ie 9/11. I would imagine it's similar for most people. That is, they came to reject religion by their own volition.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Dave Silverman was only slightly less terrible in that clip than he normally is.

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

For me personally, becoming agnostic wasn't the result of influence from others, but from living during this time and seeing horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion, ie 9/11. I would imagine it's similar for most people.

Atrocities being committed in the name of religion is a terrible reason to stop being religious. It drives me mad every time Harris or Dawkins makes that argument, and Mr. Blonde too for that matter. What, so a bunch of cunts hijack some planes and crash them into buildings in the name of God and suddenly that means God doesn't exist? Should animal rights activists hate science because chemical companies test their toxic products on animals in the name of scientific progress? That's just lazy thinking. There are so many better reasons to not be religious based on actual arguments dealing with the thing itself, which is why the clip Mr. Blonde posted is nothing more than an exercise of activist masturbation. Both sides just rah rah rah their position based on some stupid emotional issue like Christmas rather than get to the core of the issue itself. It's the difference between talking physics at a university with a professor versus with your buddy at a bar three beers in. Waste of fucking time.

[Saint DH]

I disagree, seeing the ugly side of something you once thought was good is a fine reason to begin questioning that thing's worth and validity. There are better reasons to continue to distance yourself from religion once you've already planted the seeds of skepticism, but it seems ridiculous to say that one reason is better than another to start questioning the value of religion. Besides, when it comes to things that people feel as strongly about as religion, it usually takes a pretty large influence to stir doubt.

[Ugly Bastard]

Lol at Repug's anti-atheism.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Lol at Repug's anti-atheism.

Another stunning contribution to the discussion by UB.

What exactly about that post struck you as anti-atheist? I wasn't disagreeing with his conclusion, only the line of thinking he used to reach it.

[Ugly Bastard]

I'm just busting your chops at the catty remark about Silverman. Don't know the guy but he seemed really tolerable in that video so your distaste for him betrays some inability to accept a godless reality. I didn't mean to interrupt serious time. I'll shut up now. Hope you guys get all this stuff worked out.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Nah, I just think he's a poor representative of atheistic causes.

[Ugly Bastard]

[I know I said I would stop replying in this thread, but] Really?! How so? He seemed like the most palatable ambassador of atheism I have encountered in a while. For a second in was even inspired to be less hush-hush about the reality that yes, I suppose, I am an atheist. What makes him a poor representation of atheism to you?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Nah, I just think he's a poor representative of atheistic causes.

How is he not? What are "atheistic causes"? It took me years after becoming an agnostic/atheist before I began to get over the "lol raptor jesus" phase and began to become interested in the deeper philosophical aspects of atheism/religion. I'm still not quite where you are yet, obviously. But when I was an indoctrinated theist, before I became an atheist, what started the change were statements such as "God came from nothing too..." etc. People have to start small and work their way up, and it takes a long time.

Silverman does great in his role as an activist for equal treatment of all religions by the government, and is great at reaching out to closet atheists. He's getting a lot better at his interviews in this regard. As the head of American Atheists, a position he will probably hold for a long time, I think he's doing a great job at representing the legal and social rights of atheists and helping to establish a currently very weak demographic.

You're not going to get a serious philosophical discussion on any major news network, let alone FOX news. So I don't really know why you're upset. Admittedly, it's not the most intellectually satisfying segment to watch, but again...it's Hannity...

[Dent]

BBC 1 Debate - Capitalism & Christianity - The Big Questions - YouTube

BBC 1 Debate - Capitalism & Christianity - The Big Questions - YouTube

The Big Questions is back, worth getting up on a sunday for.
Next weeks episode is "Is it time for all religions to accept evolution?" I can't wait.
This weeks episode introduced me to the most beautiful girl alive (this week) Aarathi Prasad

I've just ordered her book.
Like a Virgin: How Science is Redesigning the Rules of Sex: Amazon.co.uk: Aarathi Prasad: Books

It's also worth watching to see some monkey talk about fire

[Saint DH]

That woman is a 7 at best.

Now I'm almost certain you're a fag.