tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post8089250437626594094..comments2023-10-28T08:21:03.400-07:00Comments on ATHEIST HAVEN: How To Converse With Religious FundamentalistsBEAST FCDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comBlogger118125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-30932980397087885532007-08-21T07:05:00.000-07:002007-08-21T07:05:00.000-07:00Well IT, my point is that belief in a God is indee...Well IT, my point is that belief in a God is indeed rational..for all the reasons I have stated. I have also pointed out that any believe, even atheism relies on faith.<BR/><BR/>Note the prolific writer and well known atheist Antony Flew and his recent book:<BR/> There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. <BR/><BR/>If you glance through it, you will find that Antony was convinced of the rationality of belief in a god after reviewing the scientific evidence, which is how I started this conversation originally. An avid atheist was convinced by the preponderance of the evidence for god.<BR/>I again refer you to this paper for your review.<BR/>http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html<BR/>Take the time to digest it, its very insightful, and no one has contradicted any of it.<BR/><BR/>All conclusions about philosophical areas, including theology are based in some reason and logic, even if its faulty. No one developes a world view they believe to be irrational. <BR/><BR/>PS you never did answer why Christian faith is particularly bothersome to you over other forms?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-37415005047495022052007-08-19T22:06:00.000-07:002007-08-19T22:06:00.000-07:00drd Christian Faith is not rational, period. wheth...<B>drd</B> Christian Faith is not rational, period. whether you think it SHOULD be is beside the point.<BR/><BR/>"presuppositions" can be a theological term meaning choosing to decide in the Christian God? am I correct? drd askes <I>Do you have any reason that you omit the 'Christian God' especially and more so than others?</I> My answer: We agree that we all choose to decide in something. We have to decide that what we choose is the most logical presupposition, me choosing to base my decisions on what is human as apposed to "Pie in the sky" assumptions is the most logical presupposition for me. & There really is no sense in arguing about it anymore at this point though, is there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-80462327893888410772007-08-19T11:26:00.000-07:002007-08-19T11:26:00.000-07:00IT said:"drd leaves us with this zingerUnless you ...IT said:<BR/>"drd leaves us with this zingerUnless you are omnipotent, you excercise faith in you conclusion.<BR/>Hence, your entire thesis to this post is incorrect." drd<BR/>You reply:<BR/> the problem is, Not everyone fits into the slot you want to stuff them into drd, you assume way too much. <BR/><BR/>What slot are you refering to? How does this comment address or respond to my remark, and what have I assumed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-44545901261103343122007-08-19T11:23:00.000-07:002007-08-19T11:23:00.000-07:00Next you say:"drd..... and have concluded that god...Next you say:<BR/>"drd..... and have concluded that god most likely does not exist."<BR/><BR/> acually I just leave the concept of God (esp. The Christian one) out of the equation. I try to "interpret the data" in a purely humanistic way. I see no reason to presuppose a God, that I can neither prove or disprove.<BR/><BR/>IT, this statement shows clearly you are presuppositional in your thinking (no biggy, we all are),you see, you 'chose' to interpret it from a humanistic perspective...there is your presup..right there.<BR/>You chose to not presup god..another presup there.<BR/>Do you have any reason that you omit the 'Christian God' especially and more so than others?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-71372536315919315572007-08-19T11:20:00.000-07:002007-08-19T11:20:00.000-07:00IT or Concerned Citizen said:"drd took exception t...IT or Concerned Citizen said:<BR/>"drd took exception to my assertion that "religious claims don't have to rest on arguments, but appeal to faith" Well, it's true they don't. drd claimed to be an exception to the rule, but he really can't deny the truth of my statement."<BR/><BR/>No, I am simply saying all faith SHOULD be rational. If someone has irrational faith, it should be challenged..I am not claiming to be an exception. So ,yes, I do deny the truth of your statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-63808545901817624552007-08-18T08:41:00.000-07:002007-08-18T08:41:00.000-07:00drd took exception to my assertion that "religio...drd took exception to my assertion that <I> "religious claims don't have to rest on arguments, but appeal to faith"</I> Well, it's true they don't. drd claimed to be an exception to the rule, but he really can't deny the truth of my statement.<BR/><BR/>drd said, <I>Next, you claim to be an atheist. Are you implying by this statement that arguments for atheism are so air tight that you exercise no 'faith' component to your final conclusion? Do you claim to have infinite knowledge of all things such that you can be certain no god exists? Or, rather, are you saying that from you presups(IT, we ALL have them, me, you, everyone)you have interpreted the data at hand, and have concluded that god most likely does not exist.<BR/>If so, you are exercising faith that your conclusions are correct, and that no other data or evidence exists to refute your conclusion.</I><BR/><BR/>whether I'm an atheist...? so much rides on definitions & how we each interpret the definitions. believe it or not drd, Atheism can be a broad term and it's implications are debated among freethinkers. ...For this reason i usually identify myself as an "agnostic secular humanist", So I'll try to answer your charge & explain my position in that context. <BR/> <BR/>drd asks, <I>Are you implying by this statement that arguments for atheism are so air tight that you excersise no 'faith' component to your final conclusion? Do you claim to have infinite knowledge of all things such that you can be certain no god exists?</I> my answer is no.<BR/>drd continues<I>Or, rather, are you saying that from you presups(IT, we ALL have them, me, you, everyone)you have interpreted the data at hand, and have concluded that god most likely does not exist.</I> acually I just leave the concept of God (esp. The Christian one) out of the equation. I try to "interpret the data" in a purely humanistic way. I see no reason to presuppose a God, that I can neither prove or disprove.<BR/><BR/> drd leaves us with this zinger<I>Unless you are omnipotent, you excercise faith in you conclusion.<BR/>Hence, your entire thesis to this post is incorrect.</I> the problem is, Not everyone fits into the slot you want to stuff them into drd, you assume way too much. <BR/><BR/>Like has been said before faith in a Christian God & faith in a chair are not the the same thing. I wonder, are you reading too much C.S. Lewis?concerned citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01935396158050893085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-84922030382481492042007-08-18T07:10:00.000-07:002007-08-18T07:10:00.000-07:00DRD:The actual quote is: "God does not play dice w...DRD:<BR/><BR/>The actual quote is: "God does not play dice with the universe". You got it wrong. <BR/><BR/>Mere rhetorics cannot get you anywhere, DRD. You can't even get Einstein's quotes correct.<BR/><BR/>Here is another quote (along with the source) to debunk the myth that Einstein was a believer of Spinoza's God:<BR/><BR/> * I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.<BR/><BR/>-As quoted in Glimpses of the Great (1930) by G. S. Viereck There have been disputes on the accuracy of this quotation.<BR/><BR/>I wonder who's trembling now, DRD. As for the post on faith, its on my blog. Look for it on the right column of the blog.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-27438112576957074392007-08-18T04:55:00.000-07:002007-08-18T04:55:00.000-07:00Beast said:" Einstein has very explicitly explaine...Beast said:<BR/>" Einstein has very explicitly explained his agnosticism, ...."<BR/><BR/>Beast beast beast..here are two quotes that debunk your theory.<BR/><BR/>"God does not play dice with creation"<BR/><BR/>"If there is movement (of galaxies and star systems) then their must be a 'Mover', all effects have a cause."<BR/><BR/>These are NOT agnostic comments, except as they relate to naming the 'who' of who God is.<BR/><BR/>Again, your just off here beast, it is not me who is slinging BS here, your graspin.<BR/><BR/>In regard to your rebuttal of my faith comments. Please point me to where I may read your rebuttal. Is it in this blog or is it attached to one of your essays?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-12201460387025148612007-08-17T05:37:00.000-07:002007-08-17T05:37:00.000-07:00DRD:Your argument on faith with I>T has been refut...DRD:<BR/><BR/>Your argument on faith with I>T has been refuted by myself in one of the posts. You might as well read about it and tell me what you think.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-4482400799677396352007-08-17T05:36:00.000-07:002007-08-17T05:36:00.000-07:00DRD:I thought you wouldn't be coming back!Again, r...DRD:<BR/><BR/>I thought you wouldn't be coming back!<BR/><BR/>Again, regarding to Hitler issue, I would advise you to read up on Mein Keimpf before I start quoting and debunking your stupid arguments.<BR/><BR/>As for Hitler, I must say I have quoted more extensively than you, with sources and so on, and you only have things which Einstein professes in abstract terms, such as "God does not play dice in the universe".<BR/><BR/>As an atheist, I have often quoted using Gaia as nature, but no Christian has ever called me a theist. That is because I am not a famous scientist, and christians like you want einstein on your side despite the fact that Einstein has very explicitly explained his agnosticism, which by the way was affirmed and criticized by his very own Jewish community (Dawkins mentions this in his book, the God delusion).<BR/><BR/>You call me a poor debater because you have no basis of truth to back up your facts. You come strutting into my blog thinking you can get away with your bullshit.<BR/><BR/>Not on my turf, old boy.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-86901181270158852422007-08-16T17:03:00.000-07:002007-08-16T17:03:00.000-07:00ITyou said "religious claims don't have to rest on...IT<BR/>you said "religious claims don't have to rest on arguments, but appeal to faith"<BR/><BR/>Let me just say, if it were not for the rational nature of my 'faith', I would not have it.<BR/><BR/>Next, you claim to be an atheist. Are you implying by this statement that arguments for atheism are so air tight that you excersise no 'faith' component to your final conclusion? Do you claim to have infinite knowledge of all things such that you can be certain no god exists? Or, rather, are you saying that from you presups(IT, we ALL have them, me, you, everyone)you have interpreted the data at hand, and have concluded that god most likely does not exist. <BR/>If so, you are exercising faith that your conclusions are correct, and that no other data or evidence exists to refute your conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Unless you are omnipotent, you excercise faith in you conclusion. <BR/>Hence, your entire thesis to this post is incorrect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-81770853564336193272007-08-16T16:55:00.000-07:002007-08-16T16:55:00.000-07:00So what proof do you have? Don't expect me to come...So what proof do you have? Don't expect me to come up with any proofs because the burden of proof lies on you who claims it.<BR/><BR/>Beast <BR/><BR/>Did you read the paper I attached from Bradley? So I don't have to go back and give you a ton more examples, start with that.<BR/>In essence, the same things that lead Einstein to conclude there was a higher power, and the same reason Eddington hated the implications of cosmology, I say that this is good evidence for a reasonable man to believe in a God. <BR/>You have offered NO defense to this whatever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-23723924890654834912007-08-16T16:51:00.000-07:002007-08-16T16:51:00.000-07:00Come on Beast, PLEASE!!!You said "Again, a non-seq...Come on Beast, PLEASE!!!<BR/><BR/>You said "Again, a non-sequitor argument: I don't believe in a personal god, so I must believe in a supreme being.....where's the logic in this???"<BR/><BR/>I gave you the quotes by Einstein that showed he DID believe in a higher power, although not personal god. THATS why it does follow..and its sequitur not tor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-7563310484058111562007-08-16T16:48:00.000-07:002007-08-16T16:48:00.000-07:00Beast said:"You are blaming that the ills of misbe...Beast said:<BR/>"You are blaming that the ills of misbehaving Christians are achieving atheists in disguise? Such insinuations are again, hypocritical, and not very intelligent."<BR/><BR/>What is not intelligent is your inability to follow reason. I never said "all"...I am following up on the Hitler example. Clearly to any reasonable person who has read Hitlers stuff, he claimed a catholic background, all the while claiming to follow Nietzhe's principles, which were decidedly atheistic. I asked if you believed that someone (an individual not everyone..stay with me here beast) might be following atheistic presupps all the while holding on to a religious background. Clearly this is what Hitler did. This point goes to the 'common sense file' and the fact that your still debating it is testimony to your lack of debating skills (despite you self-accolades)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-47300480433130778002007-08-16T16:42:00.000-07:002007-08-16T16:42:00.000-07:00Been gone a bit..so here we go:Beast said:"Let's s...Been gone a bit..so here we go:<BR/>Beast said:<BR/>"Let's simplify this once and for all: If a person believes in the Bible, and believes that Jesus Christ is God, then he or she is a Christian.<BR/><BR/>And that includes Hitler and The Godfather."<BR/><BR/>Really? This is not how Christians define it. But, its your blog so I guess you can make up your own definitions. Actually, claiming to be part of a 'culture' like a catholic culture is more appropriate in defining those men. But if you think they are Christians, you call it how you want..no reasonable person can call your argument logical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-85919128594558758472007-08-13T08:08:00.000-07:002007-08-13T08:08:00.000-07:00drdI would suggest to you that your feelings that ...drd<I>I would suggest to you that your feelings that 'religion is the cause of all ills' is based in a presuppositional world view that colors your opinion..</I> I have to refute this because I don't feel that way. & my world view is not presuppositional in that way. I did say, <B>"Fundamentalists in all religions are a major cause of trouble in the world. " & I did say </B>religion was fatally flawed. <BR/><BR/>drd said...<I>but, it could just as easily be a fundamental problem with humans that allow us to use anything at our disposal as rationel for bad behavior. </I> Of course the human mind is capable of casting about & finding things to use to justify bad behavior. & The fundamental flaws I stated that are in religious thinking make it a prime target for this kind of justification.<BR/><BR/> drd said <I>If religion is man made, and totally false, then it is nothing more than a philosophy with out any real truth behind it (which is what you believe),</I>There you go assuming what i believe, again. I can see where you might infer that i think that but, I have to refute this too. I've never said that about religion.<BR/><BR/> I understand Religion & philosophy as 2 different things. "A philosophy" is a set of values or principles. A particular religion might then have a "philosophy" associated with it, but particular "philosophies" will not necessarily have religious elements. Philosophical claims are justified by arguments, which provide reasons to believe those claims; religious claims don't have to rest on arguments, but appeal to faith. Actually, a friend & I have been debating this question, "What came first, first religion or philosophy?" So you see I view them as separate things. As far as religion "being man made" I tend to believe it is innate & by that I mean that the concepts we have of incomprehensible and our concept of a perfect being, and any other concept that is naturally of a religious nature is built into the human psyche(?) & is manifest by religious feeling or experience. <BR/><BR/><BR/>drd concludes <I>If you believe religion is a figment of mans imagination ,then you cannot blame it for ills, since it, in reality, does not exist. Your opinion has not basis at all if you extrapolate it out to the logical end.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I hope I've shown that I don't "believe" the way you assume I believe. <BR/><BR/>I stated, <I>"Religious knowledge is mainly based on faith placed in the alleged revealed wisdom provided by a Deity."</I> This I think is a fundamental flaw of religion. Not a thing to base truth on & certainly not a thing to go around killing other people over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-52587440657319632842007-08-12T01:00:00.000-07:002007-08-12T01:00:00.000-07:00Fundamentalist Atheist....what a chic word.This is...Fundamentalist Atheist....what a chic word.<BR/><BR/>This is an oxymoron, right of the bat, because atheists have no religious scriptures nor a subset of beliefs to be "fundamentalist" about.<BR/><BR/>Sure, some atheists are pretty much committed, but this surely does not equate to fundamentalism. My dedication to my dayjob cannot be considered "fundamentalist", any more than more appreciation of the female breasts is "chauvinistic".<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-9783410709029499042007-08-12T00:42:00.000-07:002007-08-12T00:42:00.000-07:00"Since then, you have failed:1. To explain how God..."Since then, you have failed:<BR/><BR/>1. To explain how God is involved in the intricacies of physics and biology."<BR/><BR/>Oh ,but that was not my intent to show 'how'..only that the evidence points to the likely hood of a Gods intervention..I never proposed to show 'how' God is involved..<BR/>You lose here too, since you were unable to offer any rational position in opposition to my points in this area other than the fabled , "I don't agree""<BR/><BR/>Again, whether I agree or not is not the issue at hand. I cannot see the proof of god in the realm of physics and biology.<BR/><BR/>The "irreducible complexity" has been roundly refuted by many scientists, and I really don't see why you claim this is only my point of view.<BR/><BR/>You claim that at some point, God must intervene. Which point? Behe's edge of evolution and irreducible complexity has been roundly refuted. And physics never says anything about God running black holes or galaxies.<BR/><BR/>So what proof do you have? Don't expect me to come up with any proofs because the burden of proof lies on you who claims it.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-85257817853705960292007-08-12T00:34:00.000-07:002007-08-12T00:34:00.000-07:00DRD:You are acting like a child, and it is not eas...DRD:<BR/><BR/>You are acting like a child, and it is not easy to see why.<BR/><BR/>Let us go through the list again, shall we?<BR/><BR/>1. The "GodFather" Argument<BR/><BR/>Obviously, there seems to be an argument about who is, or who isn't a true Christian.<BR/><BR/>Let's simplify this once and for all: If a person believes in the Bible, and believes that Jesus Christ is God, then he or she is a Christian.<BR/><BR/>And that includes Hitler and The Godfather.<BR/><BR/>2."Do you believe that some, just might 'use or pervert' religion for their own selfish motives, that are much more centered on an atheistic world view, despite their religious background?"<BR/><BR/>Another not so fair-minded, conservative view of yours again: You are blaming that the ills of misbehaving Christians are achieving atheists in disguise? Such insinuations are again, hypocritical, and not very intelligent. <BR/><BR/>3. "You showed Einstein quotes....ya..ok..and one was 'pre-god' understanding, and one was post..the Post quote clearly stated he didn't believe in a 'PERSONAL GOD'...hence, he did believe in a supreme being, which the quotes I provided PROVED...you lose this round."<BR/><BR/>Again, a non-sequitor argument: I don't believe in a personal god, so I must believe in a supreme being.....where's the logic in this???<BR/><BR/>4."To explain why atheism is murderous, because I have refuted it.<BR/><BR/>You refuted what?? I don't think so, maybe in your mind...not in a rational mind.<BR/><BR/>However, again, I never proposed to suggest 'why atheism' was..instead I proposed people were, in general, and noted the absurdity of using religion as the excuse..since clearly atheists (which by the way, are a very modern construct, thats why past murder's were not atheists..they didn't exist centuries ago.)<BR/><BR/>Back to my point, clearly atheist can be as terroristic and brutal as religious.."<BR/><BR/>First of all, atheism is not a modern construct. Socrates was one of the earliest recorded atheists. There was, and always will be atheists. Probably not many outspoken ones, but enough to spark off the age of Enlightenment.<BR/><BR/>The problem with religion is this: All too often, tyrants and monarchies rely on the ignorance of the masses to cement their rule, and to do that, religion is often the superglue. Napoleon Bonarparte was quite succinct when he explained:"Religion prevents the poor from murdering the rich". Religion forbids people to think, doesn't do justify to the intelligence of man, and breeds the worst kinds of people ever to walk on the face of the Earth.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Hitler, I have made my arguments very clearly. He was in fact a practicing Catholic. He never was excommunicated, and his book, Mein Keimpf, pays tribute to his unwavering faith. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of trying to make yourself look stupid? Do you wish me to quote? I can!<BR/><BR/>4."I just wanted to see if a fundy atheist could be civil and intelligent and hold a decent dialog, while remaining rational."<BR/><BR/>I would love to. However, you started off on the wrong footing with your insinuations of infantile languages such as "uh huh no way", which is a blatant disrespect to someone who actually invited you.<BR/><BR/>Normally, I tend to abuse people who have no respect for anyone. In your case, I am actually holding back out of deference to your intelligence.<BR/><BR/>Trust me, when my patience runs out, you will truly see the real Beast. Ask Mr splinter at www.splintersofsilver.blogspot.com<BR/><BR/>Ask him how I treated him. You don't want the same shit from me, and I don't want to give you the hairdryer. <BR/><BR/>5. As for declaring victory, you won't and you can't. You are not good enough.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-8129889402015202882007-08-11T18:12:00.000-07:002007-08-11T18:12:00.000-07:00ITI respect your input and glad to have it...we ob...IT<BR/>I respect your input and glad to have it...we obviously disagree, but thats ok.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest to you that your feelings that 'religion is the cause of all ills' is based in a presuppositional world view that colors your opinion.<BR/><BR/>You say there is something fundamental about religion that allows for the abuse...but, it could just as easily be a fundamental problem with humans that allow us to use anything at our disposal as rationel for bad behavior.<BR/><BR/>Logic would lead us to conclude my opinion is more in line with reality..consider this:<BR/><BR/>If religion is man made, and totally false, then it is nothing more than a philosophy with out any real truth behind it (which is what you believe), hence religion is fictional, and cannot be the cause: Man, who invented it, is to blame.<BR/>Likewise, if man uses Nietzche's superman and god is dead philosophy, and decides to recreate humanity in the image he has of perfection (Hilter) than this becomes a philosophy leading to abuse...there is NO difference, both are to blame.<BR/>In the end, then, we are back to "humans are to blame"..<BR/><BR/>If you believe religion is a figment of mans imagination ,then you cannot blame it for ills, since it, in reality, does not exist. Your opinion has not basis at all if you extrapolate it out to the logical end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-45524396460590270762007-08-11T17:41:00.000-07:002007-08-11T17:41:00.000-07:00lastly, you say I have not converted anyone...ok y...lastly, you say I have not converted anyone...ok you got me.<BR/><BR/>I am a real real bad sinner...cause that should be my intent...but...again..I confess, alas, it was not.<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to see if a fundy atheist could be civil and intelligent and hold a decent dialog, while remaining rational.<BR/><BR/>Again, you seem to be losing on this point as well (getting pissed off is usually the first sign your losing here,...just an FYI)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-87789463065313112202007-08-11T17:39:00.000-07:002007-08-11T17:39:00.000-07:002. To explain why atheism is murderous, because I ...2. To explain why atheism is murderous, because I have refuted it.<BR/><BR/>You refuted what?? I don't think so, maybe in your mind...not in a rational mind. <BR/><BR/>However, again, I never proposed to suggest 'why atheism' was..instead I proposed people were, in general, and noted the absurdity of using religion as the excuse..since clearly atheists (which by the way, are a very modern construct, thats why past murder's were not atheists..they didn't exist centuries ago.) <BR/><BR/>Back to my point, clearly atheist can be as terroristic and brutal as religious..<BR/><BR/>So, no, you did not win that one either..you lose there too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-71170264216315692462007-08-11T17:36:00.000-07:002007-08-11T17:36:00.000-07:00"Since then, you have failed:1. To explain how God..."Since then, you have failed:<BR/><BR/>1. To explain how God is involved in the intricacies of physics and biology."<BR/><BR/>Oh ,but that was not my intent to show 'how'..only that the evidence points to the likely hood of a Gods intervention..I never proposed to show 'how' God is involved..<BR/>You lose here too, since you were unable to offer any rational position in opposition to my points in this area other than the fabled , "I don't agree"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-80050146611831312122007-08-11T17:33:00.000-07:002007-08-11T17:33:00.000-07:00Next, you position on Hitler being catholic is as ...Next, you position on Hitler being catholic is as you say, a non-sequitur, for the reasons I have stated..Stalin was clearly atheistic, as was Pol Pot and many others who committed atrocities....<BR/><BR/>You lose that round as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7579079460015943811.post-68101767259240601252007-08-11T17:30:00.000-07:002007-08-11T17:30:00.000-07:00Beast lets examine the score card:You showed Einst...Beast lets examine the score card:<BR/><BR/>You showed Einstein quotes....ya..ok..and one was 'pre-god' understanding, and one was post..the Post quote clearly stated he didn't believe in a 'PERSONAL GOD'...hence, he did believe in a supreme being, which the quotes I provided PROVED...you lose this round.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com