Atheist Fundraiser From A Theist?

132 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
@ Callout

@ Callout

"I agree with everything else you said except that evidence always trumps honesty. It does sound odd, so I wonder if I can find a way to more accurately express this."

I apologize, I did not match the correct words to what was go in on in my head. If was to restate it, it would go "truth trumps an honest person"

Just because a person may live to the highest moral standards of their day, and be sincere and truthful, that does not guarantee that their beliefs and world view match up with reality. History is littered with such people, who in hindsight are proven to be very incorrect.

CallOut's picture
That's the word I'm looking

That's the word I'm looking for! Truth. Maybe i could replace the word "honesty" with the word "truth".

I agree that high moral standards and sincerity does not guarantee a worldview with reality. Not much to say there.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ OP

@ OP

Sitting at Third Base (best seats) waiting for the first pitch of the far just speeches...*hmmm, is it too early for a real American Hotdog?*

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

*vendor yelling*... Hot dogs!... Peanuts!... Popcorn!.... Cracker Jacks!.... Hot dogs!... Peanuts! ... Popcorn!... Cracker Jacks!...

arakish's picture
Only if it is Oscar Meyer,

Only if it is Oscar Meyer, 'cause you should the song... "the wiener everybody loves to bite."


Tin-Man's picture
Everybody! All together now..

Everybody! All together now....!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Man, do they still those

Man, do they still those Fajitas at the third tier, they were good...nothing happening here, I will wait fr the first pitch before I bother watching anymore....* gets out of seat disturbing several people and spilling TNMs beer* Hey...Crackerjacks..OVER HERE... ducks flying packet to see it whack Cog upside the head....*giggles* and continues in search of really good Fajitas...answer me yanks...why s the beer so shit in the stadia?

arakish's picture
"why s the beer so shit in

"why s the beer so shit in the stadia?"

Because Americans don't know how to brew beer. I drink only European ales. The first time I drank anything like beer/ale was at a German Oktoberfest and you know Germans only brew ales, not beers. I was forever hooked on European ales. I remember the first time I tried an American beer (Budweiser). I spewed that horse piss all over the place and literally asked, "What the Hell is this horse piss?" I then asked the waitress if they had any European style ales. She smiled and brought one to me.

Basically, I cannot stand beers/lagers. I can drink them, but definitely do not like them. And the worst beers of the world I have ever tasted are those truly nasty Mexican beers. They are worse than the American beers. Hell, I cannot even stand Fosters, but it is way better than any American beer. Give me a Blue Moon, Guiness, Amber Bock, etc. as long as it is an ale.


Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

*using napkin to sop up beer from seat*.... Awwww, maaaan... There's fifteen bucks down the drain.... *frown*... Oh, well. No sense crying over spilt beer.... *shrugging shoulders*.... Hey, Old Man, since you're going up, grab me some cotton candy and one of those huge "We're #1" foam fingers... Oh, and some Big League Chew bubble gum.... Oo-oo-oo and some sunflower seeds... And definitely some nachos with cheese, but I like the jalapenos in a seperate little cup... Thanks! You're a pal!..... Oh, and another beer, please!... *looking over at Cog*... Hey, Cog! You gonna eat those Cracker Jacks?

Cognostic's picture
The worst beer in the world

The worst beer in the world is brewed in Sweden. It is called Five Crowns. It's a malt liquor. I drank one once and stank like malt liquor for 3 days. I could not shower the shit off. It oozed out of my pores and made me stink like malt flavored morning breath. Everywhere I went for three days, I knew I stunk like a man who had slept on the street under a urinal. (I actually know what that smells like as I did it once.)

CallOut's picture
too funny!

too funny!

Cognostic's picture
You assert "it is reasonable

You assert "it is reasonable to believe in God." All the atheist does is ask you "What REASON do you have?"

You have made several noticeable errors thus far.
1. God is a being. How do you know that? It generally comes from asking the wrong question. If the question is flawed, your answer will be flawed. When you ask "Who made the universe." You are asserting an answer in the question. "Who!" Better questions would be, "How did the universe get here? Was the universe created? How would you support such ideas?"

@"Scientific arguments are fascinating, but I find they are never ending. To put it crudely, the only thing absolute about evidence is our ability to tailor it to our biases."

Wow, that comment is so far out on the limb that it does not see the light of day with the rest of the tree. What do you think SCIENCE is. The whole goal of science is to remove biases and replace them with hard observable facts. If you want to see Biased science you need to look at Creationist claims. Biased science begins with a goal and then cherry picks information to prove a point. Typical examples of this are the UFO inquiries, Big Foot supporters, Missing 411, and Jesus. Science never begins with an assertion and then tries to prove it by choosing facts. It begins with a hypothesis and then does everything it can to disprove it. Only when the information can not be disproved does it become a fact and then lead to a hypothesis. What the general public calls science is not anything scientific at all. NO ONE EVER TAILORS INFORMATION. To do that would get a scientist laughed out of any scientific academy. The only people tailoring information are the conspiracy theories and religion.

@ "Stumping either side doesn’t pose resolution, rather it just leaves the subdued candidate with the feeling that their answer hasn’t been discovered yet."

Either side is not stumped. This is a Religious God of the Gaps position. "You can not prove my god does not exist so it does." BULLSHIT. It is not our job to define or prove your god does not exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you assert your god is real or exists, YOU MUST PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. NO ONE IS STUMPED. Religion has never met their burden of proof and we have tens or thousands of failed gods to prove it. No one is STUMPED by this other than the RELIGIOUS.

@ "Sort of a “my brother can beat up your brother” type of thing. " Of course it is! Scientists have to jump through hoops to prove a theory that does not match what we already know. If you are going to prove a theory, you have to be able to answer all the challenges to that theory. A theory is a body of evidence, FACTS, HARD COLD FACTS, that are interpreted to the best of our ability. If you have another interpretation of a body of facts, that incorporates all the facts and explains them all, but differs from the current scientific theory, you can win yourself a Nobel Prize. Science is extremely competitive, but the FACTS are the same.
Religion on the other hand consists of competing myths. Take the Mormons baptizing Jews for Example. The Jewish community is actually upset about all the dead Jews being converted to Mormonism. HOW FRIGGING STUPID IS THIS. Every Christian denomination asserts their belief systems are more correct than another Church's belief systems and they know this based on FAITH and their interpretation of the ancient iron age book of confusion. RELIGION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

@ "“technically, anything is possible” You do not understand "possibility." Show me a round square. "By definition things make themselves impossible." An undefined, invisible god is exactly the same thing as nothing at all. Once you define a god, it is never a god. It is never a god as it can be imagined to be greater or less than its definition. Even that being than which no greater can be imagined is subject to the +1 rule. You can always add another attribute. And finally, as Sheldon stated (I believe) You can not IMAGINE A GOD INTO EXISTENCE. Just because you think it is real, does not make it so. You need facts and evidence. If you agree with the laws of logic, a triangle is a triangle and can not be a square, where is it you are seeing these paradoxes you speak of?

WOW DID YOU STEP OFF THE DEEP END ON THIS ONE... @ The only catch is all claims will be tested by identifying if such a claim can remain consistent within itself. If it cannot then it indicates a paradox.

NO! NO! NO! A claim that is inconsistent can be rejected on that inconsistency or reduced to a probability based on the sample size. If a claim can not remain consistent it remains unproved and can therefore be rejected as a claim. THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS NOT BEEN MET. No paradox at all. Science calls it simply the "Null Hypothesis." Nothing can be said about the claim to be true. The claim is rejected. It is not a PARADOX by any definition of the word.

@ "It is indisputable, doesn’t require evidence, and can be understood by the most simple of minds."

WRONG - Of course it requires evidence. You can not make wild assertions without evidence. That is what religions do. We know all triangles have three sides because that is the name we have given to all three sided objects in the real world. Language is symbolic and those symbols can be measured, tested, and relied upon to be true based on the way we use them. A non-euclidean triangle has more area than a Euclidean triangle. We discovered a new geometry that expanded our knowledge. As we look deeper and deeper into Plank Time, where our physics breaks down, we may find another new geometry and come up with new ideas of the properties of triangles and squares. But in each and every case, things will be clearly defined. Things are what they are and they are not what they are not. There are no half way points. Something half way is a new thing.

We can not confuse objects with definitions. And isn't that exactly what you have done with your definition of paradox. You are defining perfectly understandable things as paradoxical. You are seeing paradoxes, where none exist and pretending that this is somehow mystical.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

And the game has started with Cog first at Bat....he connects with a disappointingly readable fast ball and its . *Cog is applauded as he saunters over the home plate eating his pack of Cracker Jacks as if he has heard it all before*

Wild applause from all of us who have mystically transferred to the dugout....

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

*looking through goodies*.... Awww! Dammit. You forgot the jalapenos for the nachos!.... *looking around puzzled*... What the...? How the hell did I get in the dugout?... *shrugging shoulders*... Arakish, pass me my big foam "We're #1" hand, please.

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

***tree suddenly puts a branch behind its trunk***

What "We're #1" hand? Guess he forgot that and the jalapeños.

Uhhmm... Can I transfer my at bats from another thread to here? Mainly from "The God Delusion" thread started by BHB?


CallOut's picture
This response is the most

This response is the most juicy, so I’ll take the most time to respond to it.

If I have made any claims or accusations, then I am already misrepresenting myself. What I believe I have done so far is make propositions, hence the boredom from some of the others reading (which was hilarious btw).

The fervor from this response reveals a passion I hoped to encounter in this community, but my goal is still focused on collaboration. I will reevaluate my words whether a disagreement is harsh or courteous.

One notable correction you gave, which I want to highlight, is “a claim that is not consistent remains unproven”. The problem I have with this is the notion that, with more evidence, such an unproven claim can be reversed. Perhaps this is true, but this is not the direction I’m focused on.

What I propose is there are claims that can be made which will be forever false, and no amount of evidence can reverse that (honestly I expect this to serve the Atheist stance better than the Theist stance, so I’m not sure why the rebuttal). I referred to this as a paradox. My research shows the word “Paradox” defined as “a self contradictory proposition”. A four sided triangle is a self contradictory proposition. So I felt this word was adequate. If there is a better word for me to use, do let me know.

Additionally it sounds like my use of definition based paradoxes somehow debunks my position that paradoxes are forever impossible. I don't really follow that logic, and would be grateful if you can clarify that for me.

To summarize my approach so far is I am not yet focused on aspects of God. I am only focused on aspects of logic.

Where I am willing to stand corrected is any definitions or descriptions I have misunderstood. What I am not willing to stand corrected on is the notion that we can make a conclusion about something which is forever solidified (I am now claiming this). Additionally such a definite conclusion does not always require evidence (another claim). To the contrary, I suggest evidence can be completely absent for a conclusion to be this solidified (this is a proposition). So as not to mistake this as a cop out for theism, I also claim that logic cannot be absent. Only evidence. This is why I use the example of a triangle with 4 sides. It doesn’t need evidence to disprove, it just needs an understanding of its definition. If we want to argue that definition is the only thing that can tick all the boxes, I would be content with that conclusion for now.

Do you have any objections to the claims or propositions in this previous paragraph? I feel my example of the triangle proves my claims to be true. Let me know if I’m mistaken.

In the end, I dare say we are both agreeing to due process with logic, but my theistic stance carries a negative connotation that I will improperly use an absence of evidence as a defensible position for the existence of God. I will not. So far I believe my stance to be entirely based on reasonable logic, and I intend to keep it that way.

Cognostic's picture
No. go back and read your

No. go back and read your posts. You are making claims. Claims about god being a being. Claims about paradoxes and knowledge. Your post is dripping with unfounded claims.

Perhaps it would help you to take one idea at a time. Make a single assertion and see where it goes.

"God is a being"
"If science can not explain something it is a paradox"

Those are the two most blatant I recall.

Put ONE proposition in a post and see where it goes.

CallOut's picture
Another thought came to mind,

Another thought came to mind, that might ease up any tensions about my paradox claims. Take this example...

If God always answers prayer, and two opposing sports teams pray to win, one of the teams will have their prayer unanswered. Therefore god did not answer that team’s prayer, and thus a paradox has ensued. God cannot answer both teams with a win at the same time, and we don’t need evidence to prove this this. It is basic logic, and this stance will will remain forever contradictory.

As such a more reasonable conclusion would be that God likely didn’t answer either prayers, or that a conscious God doesn’t exist at all, or that Mary Poppins is a real character that can fly on an umbrella. Either way, nearly anything is more plausible than a paradox.

Hows that? Is that more digestible? Any disagreements?

Tin-Man's picture
@CallOut Re: The entire

@CallOut Re: The entire post starting with, "If God always answers prayer, and two opposing sports teams pray to win, one of the teams will have their prayer unanswered..."

*standing just outside the batter's box*.... *looks back over at the dugout*.... *reads signal from manager to bunt*.... *nods head in acknowledgment*.... *steps into batter's box*....

For starters, I have to admit I like your analogy (for obvious reasons). *chuckle* Matter of fact, that is an "old" analogy I have seen on here a couple of times already regarding prayer. While on one hand I do understand you are using it as means to explain your "paradox claim", on the other hand you are seemingly asking us to presume some type of god (conscious or otherwise) exists. Yes, it does clarify your "paradox claim" a bit better, I suppose. (I understand it, at least.) However, I feel that you are still missing the point that others have been trying to make, in that before any of this (prayer, miracles, etc.) is even relevant, it must first be shown the possibility of a god existing in the first place. Otherwise, the rest of it is a rather moot point. Hope all of that made sense..... *looks back at dugout*.... Arakish! Stop eating all my nachos!....

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

***tree waving branch that has a "We're #1" hand on it***

"Mmf naf eeffing iingthunmf."

***an unseen root pokes up from pitchers mound tripping pitcher enough his pitch hits with a solid thunk on a barrel-shaped piece of metal ... root quietly disappears smoothing dirt on the mound***


CallOut's picture
I'm glad you are seeing what

I'm glad you are seeing what I'm talking about. I'm still trying to be understanding as well. I think we are getting close.

Nyarlathotep's picture


A random tangent on what you said:

If praying worked; then praying to win a sports contest would be cheating. Yet the behavior is still very common. It is almost like everyone already knows it doesn't work...

CallOut's picture
That's deep.

That's deep.

David Killens's picture
@ CallOut

@ CallOut

"If God always answers prayer, and two opposing sports teams pray to win, one of the teams will have their prayer unanswered. Therefore god did not answer that team’s prayer, and thus a paradox has ensued. God cannot answer both teams with a win at the same time, and we don’t need evidence to prove this this. It is basic logic, and this stance will will remain forever contradictory."

You are making assumptions that require proof. You are assuming a god, and that this god always answers prayers.

If both statements are true, then there may be a contradiction. But if there is no god and/or this god does not answer all prayers, then there is no contradiction.

Maybe you need to re-appraise your opinion on your god, that it does not answer all prayers. By doing so you have removed one contradiction.

Cognostic's picture
This is another example of

This is another example of your comments dripping with assertions. You must prove there is a god before you can assert it answers prayers. (We know for a fact prayer does not work. Research study after research study validates this.) The best you can get out of prayer is positive affirmations. A well known psychological technique to help motivation and relieve depressions.

You are in the land of complete unsubstantiated imagination.

Assuming there is something called God that answers prayers and the members of two opposing teams all pray to win a competition they are having with each other and only one team wins. It can not be asserted that this God answered one of the teams prayers and not the other's or that he answered the winning teams prayer and not the losers. You have created a black and white fallacy where all the options are not available. You mention that this may not have answered either teams prayers. That is another option. What if the god answered the losing team's prayers and lost anyway? What if God has a plan and he can not go against his own plan even if he wants to? All we are doing is playing games with "What Ifs" No paradox created.

We don't need evidence to prove God can not answer both teams at the same time. Sorry but you do. You need evidence of a god. You need evidence that prayer works. You need evidence that both teams can not win at the same time. You need evidence of the nature and definition of the game being played. You need evidence that God is limited and must necessarily respond to only one of the team's prayers. You need evidence that even if god responded to one team, that he respond to the winning team. What if God answered the prayers of the winning team and they won. How would you know it was due to God or the prayers?

Because God did not answer either prayer, you can conclude he does not exist. NO. All you can conclude is that prayer did not work in this case. When you pair that with all other studies done on prayer, we can be fairly certain that prayer just does not work. This says nothing at all about God. However, it is one more false Christian claim that we can toss on the woodpile of debunked claims.

You have not yet created any kind of a paradox.

Cognostic's picture
(Wiping sweat from his brow,

(Wiping sweat from his brow, Stretching his fingers. Gazing intently through the noonday sun and straight across home plate into the well worn pitchers mitt.) Cog readies himself for the second pitch. (But somewhere deep in the back of his mind is the idea that the coach could call in a new pitcher at any time. After all, pitching in this situation just looks like good practice.)

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
*slumbers gently in the Bull

*slumbers gently in the Bull Pen While waiting for the opposition to actually choose their bat*

Umpire calls the batter back and insists they get properly dressed before swinging.

Cognostic's picture
@ "The problem I have with

@ "The problem I have with this is the notion that, with more evidence, such an unproven claim can be reversed."

And it remains unproven until it is proved. This is the only rational position. You do not believe it first and then hope someone will prove it for you. If you think your position is tenable, prove it. The appropriate response to things we do not yet know is "We do not yet know." The appropriate response to claims that have no evidence, logic or reason supporting them is "There is no reason to believe these claims."

@ "What I propose is there are claims that can be made which will be forever false, " Then it is not a paradox. It is an unsubstantiated claim. A paradox is something that contradicts itself. "God both exists and does not exist at the same time" is a paradox. Nevertheless, it must also be a quality of God as the greatest god that one can imagine is a non-existent god. Surely a god that does not exist and still does all the things that an existent god can do is greater than the existent god.

@ “Paradox” defined as “a self contradictory proposition” There is nothing self contradictory or paradoxical in the propositions you assert. Please show the paradox.

@ "a claim that is not consistent remains unproven" or is relegated to a "PROBABILITY." Probabilities are inconsistent yet prove to be true. To establish a probability you must have a set of something in which the probability occurs. The probability of a god being real is ZERO. Of the hundreds of thousands of gods that we have, we have no instance of a god being real. Probability ZERO. Possibility is whatever you make it? Fantasize all you like. We have not seen the entire universe. It may be possible but it is not probable.

@ To summarize my approach so far is I am not yet focused on aspects of God. I am only focused on aspects of logic.

But you are not following the three basic laws of logic. You do not even appear close.
1. The Law of Identity. X is X. (Things are what they are.)
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction (Things are not what they are not.)
3. The Law of Excluded Middle The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. For example, my hair is brown. It is either true or false that my hair is brown. (It could be named any shade of brown. Infinite shades of brown, but each shade is its own shade.) Another example: I am pregnant. The statement is either true or false. Since I am a male, it is not possible for me to be pregnant. Therefore, the statement is false. If I were a female, it would be possible for me to be pregnant (given normal bodily conditions). A woman is not "kind-of" pregnant. She either is or is not pregnant - there is no middle position. The law of excluded middle is important because it helps us deal in absolutes. This is particularly important in a society where relativism is promoted and truth statements are denied. A triangle is a triangle and it is not any other shape.

Where are your paradoxes?

@ I suggest evidence can be completely absent for a conclusion to be this solidified (this is a proposition).

Not sure what you mean by solidified but I will assume you are referring to a "Truth" claim. As far as we know, even truth claims can change based on new information. "Gravity Exists." Of this we are quite certain. What is it? This keeps changing. Newton believed it was an "Attraction Force." Einstein came up with a theory of warped or bent space. Now we are discussing Gravitational Waves and that could lead us into a whole new area of exploration. There is still this thing called Gravity that we are trying to understand.

@ What I propose is there are claims that can be made which will be forever false, and no amount of evidence can reverse that.

Agreed. A is A and A is not B. Logical. A will never be B no matter how insistent you are that A is B. An elephant is not a penguin. This statement will be forever false even if we just switch the names. They are not the same thing.

@ such a definite conclusion does not always require evidence (another claim).
How will anyone know what you are talking about without evidence? I can think of no case at all where evidence is not required. It is evidence and exploration that brought us to the Laws of Logic in the first place. Trial and Error. So if you assert you can draw a definite conclusion about something with no evidence at all.... You will have to prove your assertion.

@ This is why I use the example of a triangle with 4 sides. It doesn’t need evidence to disprove,

It absolutely needs evidence to be proved. You need the evidence of what you are calling a triangle. For something to be a triangle it must have the properties of a triangle. You only know a triangle is not a triangle when the properties of the object do not match the properties of a triangle. A is A. A is not B.

@ it just needs an understanding of its definition.
How do you understand the definition of a triangle without knowing what a side is? (A property, observable and measurable.) You can not define a triangle without its properties. You can not understand it without understanding its properties. You only know triangles exist because of the evidence of their properties.

What you are asserting is that PLICKETS are real and have properties. You can understand them without knowing anything at all about them. You can say things about them though you know nothing of their properties. You can formulate conclusions about them without any evidence at all. They are just self evident. No. Furthermore; every conclusion you make about PLICKETS will be evidence. It can be looked for, measured, observed etc...;./

So obviously we completely disagree on the meaning an nature of triangles. You can't even discuss a triangle without knowing its properties (Evidence).

This is the problem with God. As soon as you say "It exists" you are giving it a property that can be looked at. Now you have to justify the statement with "beyond time and space." Now you have to prove that there is something beyond time and space. And it goes on and on and on.

CallOut's picture
Finally, I feel a sense of

Finally, I feel a sense of collaboration with this response. I think I see what you are saying about always needing evidence. The first point of a claim is the item of the claim must first exist, which requires evidence. From there we need no other evidence to make other claims about this item. Is that correct?

Based on this reasoning, let me refine my claim.

It is possible to prove something indisputably with no other evidence aside from that thing existing.

Is that correct? If not would you be willing to tweak it to be correct?

With respect, I'm not sure where I am missing the mark to convince this thread that I don't want to make any claims on God right now. I'm curious, if I presupposed that God doesn't exist would you still ask me to prove it? Or would you allow me to continue knowing that I'm not focused on aspects of God at this time?

The time will come when I will make an official claim. That time has not yet come. Feel free to rip me to shreds then, but I feel doing it now is premature. Whatever you want to say about God right now, I concede.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
And folks that is an amazing

And folks that is an amazing set of pitches from Cognostic. All three balls were over the middle of the plate at high speed and totally bamboozled the batter. The edge of his bat is still smoking with the air friction as they went past . Aaaaand, yes, the catcher is being replaced so he can dunk his hand in iced water.
Is there another batter brave enough or foolish enough to take on this line up....Killens is warming up in the bull pen, Tin Man practising his special drop, curve twist ball, thats always entertaing watching the batter twist himsel into a pretzel trying to see that one....and yes Ol Man is playing wall of death on the back wall on his recently modified trike, waiting his turn at bat. So top of the second it is one nil to the Atheists. Can the Believers come back?


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.