Apology to AR

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
Apology to AR

@ Everyone
If you would indulge me this last story and explanation.

My neighbor Ned had a sign in his yard that read “Neds Birthday Party”.
I always wanted to get to know him better.
I thought it would be the neighborly thing to do to show up.
I bought a present and knocked on his door. He seemed a little surprised.
He asked me if I wanted to meet his family, which I did.
I noticed that no other neighbors had shown up but thought they eventually would.
A few did show up but they didn’t stay. Just wished him a happy birthday or dropped off a present.
I thought, how rude, how un-neighborly not to stay. At least I was staying.
As the party progressed I noticed some stares and looks.
Sometime people would ask how I was related to Ned.
When I told them I was a neighbor they sometimes had a puzzled look.
I ate the cake and the ice cream, participated in the games and birthday song.
As I sat and wondered why I was the only good neighbor, I realized that I was the only non-relative.
It finally dawned on me, this was a family party.
Others could stop by but the party was for the family.

I think I have made the same mistake on AR

I was looking for a site to discuss Atheism and so I joined AR.
It is a site FOR Atheists. Others can ask a question or post a comment.
But it is not intended for others to camp out in and join every conversation.

Thank you for your time and trouble.
If I have a question I will stop by.
But will leave the family in peace.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

xenoview's picture
@Jo

@Jo
You are welcome to post at AR. So please continue to post at AR. We want to hear from theist.

David Killens's picture
You are not unwelcome Jo.

You are not unwelcome Jo.

You are mistaken for taking the viewpoint this forum is just for atheists. I want to have a healthy (and hopefully respectful) exchange of opinions between the opposing camps. In fact, there is a place just for atheists, and it is a distinct sub-forum just for atheists. The existence of this sub-forum negates your statement that AR is just for atheists.

You are always welcome, but your duplicity and evasiveness is not.

If I never see you again, I sincerely wish you and your loved ones the best in prosperity, life, health, and happiness.

Sheldon's picture
David Killens "You are

David Killens "You are always welcome, but your duplicity and evasiveness is not."

Very well put. It's not that theists are not welcome, as much as some of them come here and simply avoid debate, and some simply want to preach at us. Endless repetition without ever acknowledging cogent rational objections is always going to grate after a while.

Jo's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

I am glad to know that it was not as I thought it might be.
That AR is primarily for Atheists.
That Theists are just as welcome.
Thanks for helping me understand.

LogicFTW's picture
Atheist debate forums are

Atheist debate forums are open to all. That said, there is not going to be any "hand holding" or people being polite, all that is expected is people follow the rules. I personally do not have a personal problem towards you Jo. My problem is with religion and the notion of god. I actually well understand the intense societal pressures just about everyone faces to agree/comply with their most important peer's religions even if those religions are not based on any sort of fact or evidence whatsoever.

Additionally, theist that come here, may also be unwitting targets of some of us atheist (myself included sometimes) of letting off some of our steam and frustrations on the situation as a whole. I do not wish you any sort of ill will Jo. I do wish humanity would leave behind the unevidenced religion/god ideas so we the human race as a whole could progress more quickly. I also feel time is running out, if we do not get past the old way of doing things, our enormous population and destructive tendencies could quite literally doom this planet, the humans and all the other incredibly diverse species on it.

Far right, heavy religion (it does not matter god is in charge and has a plan) is spreading throughout the world, people have always been emotions first, but we NEED to get past that or we doom our children and grandchildren to far worse lives then we currently enjoy.

If you were in a different forums debating then I would take issue, but these are debate forums. And I think all of us take issue when folks proselytize or just spam copy and pasted text with a bunch of bible references, but I have not seen you do much of that Jo.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Don't apologise No. Happy to

Don't apologise No. Happy to debate you on any occasion (Hint:you need some facts)
The only proviso is; you stop lying.

I welcome theists with original, cogent ideas. Most come with pre suppositions and no intent to change them in light of new knowledge, like yourself Jo, they lie about their intent.

What was your real intent in coming onto these forums?

Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

I don't think I was being dishonest about my real intent.

How about to debate Atheism and all things related?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@Jo

@Jo

And seek for truth?

Your real intention was to gain converts/be a missionary regardless of facts. Admit that Jo.

(edit be a missionary to clarify meaning)

Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

My intentions was not to gain converts or be a missionary. If so, I have failed miserably.
But isn't the essence of debate trying to convince someone of something?
I think it is very unlikely either of us will change our mind on God.

I do have some ideas, questions, and opposing arguments I want to present.
I could present them to people that agree with me, but what good is that?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

First you say: My intentions was not to gain converts or be a missionary.

Then you say: But isn't the essence of debate trying to convince someone of something?

And that is how you have conducted yourself this entire debate. Lies, followed by contradictions followed by denials, followed by cries of "mes culpa, mea maxima culpa"

I have no patience for your lies and crocodile tears Jo. But you have been a great ambassador for atheism.

Simon Moon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"I think it is very unlikely either of us will change our mind on God."

But here's the thing.

The vast majority of atheists are such, because theists have failed to meet their burden of proof.

I am open to being convinced that a god or gods exist, as soon as theists are able to support their claim with: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic.

If the theist claim that gods exist was able to meet the above criteria, I would be forced by my intellectual honesty, to accept that a god exists. Without meeting the above criteria, what should be our warrant to believe?

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

Jo's picture
@ Simon Moon

@ Simon Moon

Please compare this statement to yours, and see if it sounds reasonable.
“The vast majority of theists are such, because anti-theists have failed to meet their burden of proof.”

Have those who claim there is no God been able to supply you with demonstrable and falsifiable evidence?
Can what you are requesting be provided, or are you making untenable and illogical requirements?
Are you saying that you will believe, when belief is no longer required? Is that logical?
Have you created a schema that gives you the answer you want?

While asking for those who make a claim to meet the burden of proof is a great technique that can win most arguments, does it answer the question? Is it at best, not even half an answer?

Is a passive position of waiting for others to supply you with evidence that you will deem sufficient, the way to answer the question? Is that how you answer other important question in life?

“Without meeting the above criteria, what should be our warrant to believe?” I will address this question, but first I wanted your thoughts on my responses.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

And another pathetic attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

This ploy does not make you appear clever or less mendacious to my eyes. Mereky more pathetic as you thrash around enmeshing yourself more and more in your net of lies, evasions and gobbledygook apologetics.

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

AS Old man shouts stated .....

"And another pathetic attempt to reverse the burden of proof."

It has been repeated by many people that the claimant to an assertion bears the burden of proof. Personally, I have not received enough evidence to convince me of any god or gods. I do not have to prove there are no gods, it is on you to convince me of god or gods.

It appears Jo took a week off, and when he retunred decided to go on the offensive. This is not a good tactic and not end well for Jo.

Jo's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

I am not the one who repeatedly claims that if God exists, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence could be presented.
Why don't those who make the above claim have the burden of proof for their assertion?

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Have I ever claimed that god does not exist? And I will add that during your conversations I never saw ANY atheist make that claim. All we atheists are stating is that we do not believe in a god because we have not been convinced.

YOU, Jo, and other theists are claiming that a god exists and asked to prove it. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

What if I claimed that you committed a horrific crime, and demanded that you had to prove you did not do it? Do you see how flimsy and ludicrous your position is?

If you desire to respond to this post, then I request you state what claims I had to prove.

Jo's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

I agree that it is on the one making the claim to prove it.
I am not saying that you have claimed God does not exists.
But it is a fair question to ask how you would respond to someone making that claim.

I am trying to show how some rig the question to get the answer they want.
They disguise their claim as a question.
They ask for demonstrable, scientific, or falsifiable evidence.
When they do that they are making a claim. (see Simon Moons questions a few posts back)
That those could be provided.
They are asking for a type of evidence that cannot be provided.
Then using that lack of evidence as proof.

My response to your horrific crime question.
Why is it irrational to ask someone to prove God does not exists, but rational to ask them to prove he does exists?

/Edited for clarification

LogicFTW's picture
Why is it irrational to ask

Why is it irrational to ask someone to prove God does not exists, but rational to ask them to prove he does exists?

Because people do all kinds of shit in god's name.
One concrete example? They get huge tax breaks at least in the USA. Why do I have to pay taxes but the church does not? Because god? Prove god exists then.

I would have a LOT more respect for the various religion/god ideas if they would one, divorce themselves from their: violent, bloody, dominating, past history, (like make a new church/religion/god, then not ask for any special treatment. Get the exact same treatment as atheist. Then they try to push their religion into schools adding insult to injury.

Could you even imagine if atheist tried to force all schools. (including publicly funded ones,) to teach that there is no god? Religions have a LOT to atone for, they put themselves in the situation where we are justified and rational to ask religions to prove their god, simply because they ask for special consideration.

If a religion was only in people's basements that they did on free time, and no one got hurt, no one would care, I do not demand proof for an Ouija board working, if some kids are just having harmless fun with it. But if those kids wanted to create a tax free religion and then try to push Ouija into schools yes, I would at the least demand proof, and you would/should too.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ FTW

@ FTW

If a religion was only in people's basements that they did on free time, and no one got hurt, no one would care, I do not demand proof for an Ouija board working, if some kids are just having harmless fun with it. But if those kids wanted to create a tax free religion and then try to push Ouija into schools yes, I would at the least demand proof, and you would/should too.

10,000 Agrees to you sir.

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"I agree that it is on the one making the claim to prove it.
I am not saying that you have claimed God does not exists.
But it is a fair question to ask how you would respond to someone making that claim."

My response would be "but first you must prove your god claim".

"I am trying to show how some rig the question to get the answer they want.
They disguise their claim as a question.
They ask for demonstrable, scientific, or falsifiable evidence.."

No one is rigging anything, they are just challenging the god assertion with "prove it". And what is wrong with asking for demonstrable, scientific, or falsifiable evidence? That is how it is done in the real world.

"They are asking for a type of evidence that cannot be provided."

Yea, that sucks, but tough.

"Why is it irrational to ask someone to prove God does not exists, but rational to ask them to prove he does exists?"

Hypothetically, I assert that Odin exists. Is it rational for me to ask you to prove he does not exist? Is it rational for you to ask me to prove Odin exists?

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: I am not saying that

@Jo: I am not saying that you have claimed God does not exists.\ But it is a fair question to ask how you would respond to someone making that claim."

Nothing changes: We get atheists in here all the time that are angry and want to begin with "No god's exist. Christianity is all bullshit, etc... etc... etc...." Fact is, If they do not modify their claims they do not last long. They are challenged with the exact same stuff.

You said, "No God Exists" Which god are you talking about? How do you know? etc......

If anything at all, the atheists on this site are CONSISTENT with their skepticism. Irrational claims are irrational claims.

Now if you are referring to the God of the Bible, I will tell you for a fact that that asshole is non existent. I am at least 99.9% sure. That son of a bitch is not loving, not caring, not moral, not intelligent, and a real fucktard from the beginning of the bible to the end.
REMEMBER - and I have told you at least 3 or 4 times now, "Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence." Like science, nothing is ever 100% All the actual evidence lines up against the god of the bible existing in the way religions portray him.

When an Atheist says "God does not exist." It is better asserted as "I have never, in all my years, seen any good evidence for the existence of a God. " Obviously the logical conclusion of this assertion is "I have no now, nor have I ever had, any rational or realistic reason to believe in a God or gods."

If you want to argue the existence of a god, you must clearly define the god you are talking about. If God is unknowable then you can not do that. If it is unknowable then how in the fuck are you professing to know? This is a god that can not be known to exist. Obviously.

If you argue for a God beyond time and space, you have negated the existence of that god. Without time when did he make a decision to create anything. Thoughts and actions occur in time. Without space, what in the hell was he existing in? Either there was nothing or there was a god. You can not have it both ways. If there was a god, then what was there that was not god and how do you know? We know nothing beyond Planck time so you are just guessing. This God obviously can not be known and anything at all you say about it is, of course, a made up story.

Please share your version of god and why in the hell you think it exists. What convinces you that there is a god beyond the simple fact that you have a gooey feeling that feels right to you.

David Killens's picture
@ Cognostic & Jo

@ Cognostic & Jo

"If God is unknowable then you can not do that."

If a theist claims that their god is unknowable, then they do not have reason to claim this god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and loving.

Unknowable means you know nothing about something, not that you know some qualities and not other qualities.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "I am not the one who

Jo "I am not the one who repeatedly claims that if God exists, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence could be presented.
Why don't those who make the above claim have the burden of proof for their assertion?"

Fine, then list ten things entirely unrelated to your religious beliefs you believe without any objective evidence? Hell, list one even?

Now present your proof that mermaid and unicorns aren't real.

Come on Jo, how many times must we point out the idiocy of your facile attempts to reverse the burden of proof, in order to justify a belief you hold through sheer closed minded bias?

Theism is a belief, and therefore the affirmation of a claim. Atheism is simply the absence of that belief. Who gives a fuck what some atheists may claim, it has no relevance to the burden of proof resting with the claim of theism, and not the disbelief of atheism.

If an atheists claims blue is the best colour, this doesn't mean atheism must prove the claim, even if every atheist claimed this.

I simply don't believe you haven't got this yet Jo....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

"I don't believe you haven't got this Jo"

Of course he knows it, he knows there is no contemporary evidence for his Jesus figure, he knows the gospels are edited stories rewritten centuries after the alleged happenings, He knows that the Germans , and in particular Hitler claimed to be christians exactly as he does.
Jo knows he is amoral, as amoral as the book he defends....but he dare not admit it to himself.

Jo knows that reversing the burden of proof is his last hurrah, his blindness, apologetics, biblical hermeneutics have all been dismantled.

He has played the victim card, the humble card, the liar's card, the aggressor card and all have been trumped by the very truth he claimed to be seeking.

Poor, lying Jo. Such a waste of time and intellect.

CyberLN's picture
Jo, you asked (someone else

Jo, you asked (someone else although I’m going to butt in), “Is a passive position of waiting for others to supply you with evidence that you will deem sufficient, the way to answer the question? Is that how you answer other important question in life?”

The non/existence of your god is, for me, simply not a particularly important question in my life.

Cognostic's picture
Jo: Why do you insist on

Jo: Why do you insist on straw-manning the atheist position. It is akin to just being an asshole. If you want to know whether or not an atheist, any atheist, asserts your version of a God does not exist, YOU MUST IDENTIFY THAT GOD CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY FIRST. Without a clear and accurate DEFINITION, WTF are we talking about.

Atheists are people who do not believe in God or gods. We have no reason to believe in your god until you present it. Quit posting utter nonsense. How many times must we repeat ourselves? You are not debating anything. You are making dumb-ass assertions over and over and over and it is as boring as as as .... an entire thread dedicated to Tin Man Posts. :-)

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

an entire thread dedicated to Tin Man Posts. :-)

As president of TM Ghost Writers Guild I resemble that remark. It takes a lot of hours and genuine research to write that stuff. Ok we can only work one day in 3 and have our shifts rostered to cover because of the vomitous, errrmmmm uh, I mean HILARIOUS nature of the content...but hey them's the breaks. I mean who writes your shit? yeh, exactly a thousand monkeys chained to typewriters and you still haven't done a Shakespeare have ya? Maybe pay them bananas instead of pecans you tightwad.

Yours Fraternally
TMGWG (Pres)

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "...and it is as

@Cog Re: "...and it is as boring as as as .... an entire thread dedicated to Tin Man Posts. :-)"

Hmmph!... *nose turned up in snooty manner*... I have you know, Mr. Banana Brain, that my posts happen to be VERY popular. Matter of fact, the Institute of Insomnia Research uses my posts extensively for their scientific studies, and they are raving with excitement as they believe they are on the verge of finding a cure for insomnia..... using MY posts... *smug look on face while folding arms across chest*... Ha!... *sticking out tongue*... Don't be a hater...

LogicFTW's picture
@Jo

@Jo

I think it is very unlikely either of us will change our mind on God.

You are correct on that one.

I been on these boards for over 3 years now, never seen an atheist or theist switch to the other side unless they were already "on the fence." More specifically I never seen anyone swayed by an argument presented here.

Most folks are here to debate, not change their entire world views. Additionally debating/arguing something usually strengthens any confirmation bias a person has, because people like to write/talk more than listen/learn.

I debate because I learn a lot. I actually feel I understand theist and religion and why people do what they do, much better from debating here and elsewhere then I have in the past. I understand confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, tribalism and many others and how they play together. I have read and learned on religious history and begin to understand how we as a human race got to where we are now.

Finally: while theist want to deny it, religion is in steep decline overall. Sure the more aggressive religions that still manage to control most everything people can see, hear, read etc are growing, but overall religion is in decline, and on the time scale of religions, it is happening FAST. In less than 5 generations religion went from a total way of life to just a minor detail in most people's lives in western cultures especially the all important younger generation (the ones that can still have kids!) And it is easy to understand why, western religions no longer control all learning/media/communication. Something impossible to do with the internet around, and people demanding uncensored access.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Logic

@ Logic

A few hundred 'agrees' to you on this post...these forums have been a great place to learn. It is a shame that many of the theists like Jo who come here do not do that small, and easy thing.

Mind the 'Lurkers' are the ones I address most of my debate posts towards.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.