What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Matthew Shute · **#4181** by **Matthew Shute** » Jul 06, 2015 9:19 pm

murshid wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote::lol:

I loved how he showed four fingers while saying, "five justices". Also, "Adam and Mary".

Here's another parody:

SafeAsMilk · **#4182** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jul 06, 2015 9:35 pm

That one's the best :lol:

murshid · **#4183** by **murshid** » Jul 06, 2015 10:10 pm

Aca · **#4184** by **Aca** » Jul 15, 2015 2:26 pm

'All Churches in America Have Muslim Spies in Them' Who Are 'Cataloging' Every Jew and Christian in Preparation for Jihad,Claims Avi Lipkin at Future Conference

http://www.christianpost.com/news/all-c ... in-140432/

Alan B · **#4185** by **Alan B** » Jul 15, 2015 3:11 pm

Yeah. You can spot them by their beards & niquabs...

Thomas Eshuis · **#4186** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 15, 2015 9:22 pm

Alex Jones warns listeners: The UN is a “space cult” plotting to eradicate humanity by making our children gay

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/14/alex_jones_warns_listeners_the_un_is_space_cult_plotting_to_eradicate_humanity_by_making_our_children_gay/

Matthew Shute · **#4187** by **Matthew Shute** » Jul 15, 2015 9:59 pm

I see Alex Jones is putting in a sterling effort to outdo David Icke with the paranoid conspiracy lunacy again.

I wonder why, if the UN's endgame is to have us all as asexual humanoids, they're trying so hard to "sexualize children"? :think:

Thomas Eshuis · **#4188** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 15, 2015 10:00 pm

Matthew Shute wrote:I see Alex Jones is putting in a sterling effort to outdo David Icke with the paranoid conspiracy lunacy again.

I wonder why, if the UN's endgame is to have us all as asexual humanoids, they're trying so hard to "sexualize children"?

You're not the first to notice that.

Matthew Shute · **#4189** by **Matthew Shute** » Jul 16, 2015 6:31 pm

Just for a bit of fun, I made this:

Thomas Eshuis · **#4190** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 16, 2015 7:09 pm

Funny, but I can't stand those computer generated voices. They irk me.

Matthew Shute · **#4191** by **Matthew Shute** » Jul 16, 2015 7:19 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Funny, but I can't stand those computer generated voices. They irk me.

I have an old microphone, but the quality is horrible. I don't know, but the hissing and crackling might have irked even more.

It's a fair point, though. I need to get one.

Thomas Eshuis · **#4192** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 17, 2015 5:54 pm

Random YT guy's evidence for the existence of god:

Every time a child is born, a bird chirps, or a cloud floats by, I know how blessed we are by God's grace. This is not enough for you to see Him? The Bible teaches us that only God can reveal Himself to us. I pray by His prevenient grace He does such that, someday, for you...I can not show you God. That requires faith....Furthermore, you can not show me the absence of God. That also requires faith. We both believe something that we can not make the other see. Who is wrong?...It is a matter of faith.

Thomas Eshuis · **#4193** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 17, 2015 6:02 pm

This article filled with mental gymnastics:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/proof.html

It's impossible for God to prove his existence to beings with freedom of thought. For any conceivable thing that God could do to demonstrate his existence, one or more of the following objections can always be made:

The person(s) witnessing the demonstration were hallucinating or dreaming
The demonstration was an optical illusion
The demonstration is a natural phenomena which science will eventually explain
The demonstration was not caused by God, but by someone else, possibly someone masquerading as God: Satan, an advanced race of aliens, a committee of deities, etc.
The demonstration was misinterpreted: aliens made a mistake when they tried to contact us, the scientists who documented it made mistakes or were biased towards theism, etc.
God existed when he caused the demonstration to occur, but he's since vanished or died
The demonstration never occurred, because the world was created yesterday and all our memories were faked, or because The Matrix is reality and this world is a virtual simulation created by aliens/robots/etc. to occupy our minds
Since many of the above objections can't be absolutely disproven, God's existence can't be absolutely proven.

God wants a relationship built on trust, not proof

Yet even if God provided proof that was satisfactory to everyone, faith and trust would still be required to follow God. The atheist's question would merely change from "Why doesn't God prove his existence?" to "Why doesn't God explain why he did this and not that?" Atheists themselves would become theists, but not all of them would become Christians: one can believe God exists without believing he's worthy of worship, or that Christ's death atoned for our sins.

God wants us to trust him, not just believe he exists. If our every demand for proof and explanation were satisfied, we'd only trust and follow God to the extent that he proved himself to us. We would be relying on the external evidence and our own judgment of it, not actually trusting God. For us to actively trust God, we have to continue in our belief even when what we believe in isn't proven. And why is trust so important? Because it requires a deeper relationship with the one trusted. Anyone will believe a stranger's statement if he immediately produces proof to back it up, but believing a person without having proof requires the believer to have a positive opinion of the person (at least that they deserve the benefit of the doubt) and to take a certain amount of risk. If the risk is large, the believer is dependent on the person. If the trust turns out to be justified, the believer has a higher opinion of the person and a stronger relationship with them.

Alan B · **#4194** by **Alan B** » Jul 17, 2015 7:45 pm

It's impossible for God to prove his existence to beings with freedom of thought.

So Gawd will only 'reveal' itself to those who can't think for themselves... The mindless gullible unthinking masses...

Oh, for fucks sake! :crazy:

scott1328 · **#4195** by **scott1328** » Jul 17, 2015 11:44 pm

Alan B wrote:
It's impossible for God to prove his existence to beings with freedom of thought.

So Gawd will only 'reveal' itself to those who can't think for themselves... The mindless gullible unthinking masses...

Oh, for fucks sake!

Luke 1:37 English Standard Version (ESV) wrote:

For nothing will be impossible with God.

ADParker · **#4196** by **ADParker** » Jul 18, 2015 12:45 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:This article filled with mental gymnastics:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/proof.html

Idiotic, but dripping with an all too common theistic apologetics trope. So what the Hel:

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:It's impossible for God to prove his existence to beings with freedom of thought.

So God has either proved himself to no one, and anyone claiming he (sorry; "He" :roll:

) has is lying. Or anyone God has proven himself to is not a being with freedom of thought... which would explain a lot come to think about it. :think:

But why? Why on earth would it be impossible for God to prove his existence to me (as one of those beings) while so effortlessly easy for any person (my son for example) to prove his existence to me? Look there he is, proven - to any reasonable standard. It only makes anything close to sense if this God character we are talking about is somehow incapable of manifesting itself.

Note that, while not yet explicitly stated, the author has jumped immediately to proof in the absolute 100% sense, as if no atheist would accept it unless absolutely proven. And that is ridiculous.

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:For any conceivable thing that God could do to demonstrate his existence, one or more of the following objections can always be made:

The person(s) witnessing the demonstration were hallucinating or dreaming
The demonstration was an optical illusion
The demonstration is a natural phenomena which science will eventually explain
The demonstration was not caused by God, but by someone else, possibly someone masquerading as God: Satan, an advanced race of aliens, a committee of deities, etc.
The demonstration was misinterpreted: aliens made a mistake when they tried to contact us, the scientists who documented it made mistakes or were biased towards theism, etc.
God existed when he caused the demonstration to occur, but he's since vanished or died
The demonstration never occurred, because the world was created yesterday and all our memories were faked, or because The Matrix is reality and this world is a virtual simulation created by aliens/robots/etc. to occupy our minds
Since many of the above objections can't be absolutely disproven, God's existence can't be absolutely proven.

And those insanely demanding levels of proof avoidance holds true for literally everything. Yet we prove (to what are deemed satisfactory levels) the existence of all kinds of things all the time. :nono:

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:
God wants a relationship built on trust, not proof

This is one of those soundbites that can be thought to sound reasonable as long as you don't think about the context being presented. A relationship might be built on trust, but the very existence of that which one is expected to have a relationship is not reasonably expected to be one of those things just assumed as a matter of trust. Because that would be idiotic, a insane level of trust, the same levels con men work to imbue their intended victims with. :roll:

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:Yet even if God provided proof that was satisfactory to everyone,

Note the shift from "absolute" to "satisfactory" proof, as if this more reasonable expectation was the topic of the preceding blather? :think:

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:faith and trust would still be required to follow God. The atheist's question would merely change from "Why doesn't God prove his existence?" to "Why doesn't God explain why he did this and not that?" Atheists themselves would become theists, but not all of them would become Christians: one can believe God exists without believing he's worthy of worship, or that Christ's death atoned for our sins.

And this is implied to be a failing of atheists? :what:

"Silly atheists; if they got the good reason to believe God exists that they demand then they would just expect more, like good reasons for obeying/accepting what God commands etc. :roll:

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:God wants us to trust him, not just believe he exists.

What the author is actually saying is that God wants us to trust obey him without any reason to think he even exist. So not just "trust not just belief in existence" but trust before and without reason to believe in his existence, which necessarily includes no reason to consider god trustworthy either. What God (but really those claiming God exists) wants is belief and obedience in the absence of reason to do so, and the author is struggling for ways to say this without explicitly (i.e. honestly) saying it.

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:If our every demand for proof and explanation were satisfied, we'd only trust and follow God to the extent that he proved himself to us.

Act to the weight of the evidence?! Oh the horror! Much better to act and believe on insufficient evidence, right? :what:

Basically the author is (perhaps unwittingly) admitting that they don't have sufficient evidence.

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:We would be relying on the external evidence and our own judgment of it, not actually trusting God.

Um good... right? :what:

Of course what is being indicated here is that we should ignore any evidence and just believe, for no reason at all. Idiotic.

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote: For us to actively trust God, we have to continue in our belief even when what we believe in isn't proven. And why is trust so important? Because it requires a deeper relationship with the one trusted.

Neatly ignoring the fact that a healthy trusting relationship is two way; both parties trusting and proving themselves trustworthy. What the author is promoting is a decidedly one sided and unhealthy trust relationship, much like a wife blindly trusting her husband in-spite of all evidence of his being untrustworthy. Or more closely to this situation; to someone absolutely 'trusting' that someone or some thing exists when no one else sees it. In cases not involving gods such people tend to be led to seeking psychiatric help, such trust is hardly praised. :think:

Thomas Eshuis's linked article wrote:Anyone will believe a stranger's statement if he immediately produces proof to back it up, but believing a person without having proof requires the believer to have a positive opinion of the person (at least that they deserve the benefit of the doubt) and to take a certain amount of risk. If the risk is large, the believer is dependent on the person. If the trust turns out to be justified, the believer has a higher opinion of the person and a stronger relationship with them.

Again ignoring any responsibility on the other party to show themselves to be trustworthy, to be worthy of anyone's trust. Nor is there any suggestion that one should proportion their trust of others (incl. God) to the display of that trust being earned and/or warranted.

The article goes on:

Another way of seeing it is this: Suppose a married man attends a weeklong, out-of-state conference. His wife can choose to trust that he won't have an affair while at the conference, or she can demand proof of his faithfulness by insisting he call her every hour and give a detailed account of his doings, making him wear a beeper so that she can call him at random, hiring someone to spy on him, etc.

Theistic apologists do like their false dilemmas of both extremes, ignoring anything intermediate, don't they? :roll:

Yet if she demands proof, the husband will most likely respond with "What, don't you trust me?" He will be offended because his wife's asking for proof indicates that she doesn't trust him - and since she knows his character, her distrust says that his character is lacking.

The con man says "don't you trust me?" with an expression of hurt feelings as well, as does the unfaithful husband trying to manipulate his wife in order to get away with it. :think:

On the other hand, if she trusts him, it says that she really believes he will be faithful - much more so than if she simply stated she trusted him, yet never spent a night apart from him. It's much the same with God. God wants us to trust him, because that requires both believing that he is trustworthy and acting on that belief.

And if the husband is unfaithful? and if God does not exist, is not as claimed etc? That rather important possibility is just ignored here. As if what matters is trust not trustworthiness, as if it is better to trust the untrustworthy than to not trust those of questionable worthiness of trust. That way leads to gullibility and victim-hood. Manipulators and all untrustworthy sorts love this kind of person. :nono:

That's not to say that God requires us to have blind faith - he wants us to love him with all of our mind (Lk 10:27), and he will give us reason to believe if we ask him - but that God wants our relationship with him to be built on trust as much as possible (Jn 20:29).

The bibles verses are:
Luke 10:27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

and

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

The first just demands that we love God, without question or reservation. A terrible idea for any trust situation, ripe pickings for the manipulator and con man. And the second demonstrates how unreasonable this Faith in God idea is, implying that it is not only good to trust without reason to do so, but that it is better to do so than to do so with good reason, while offering a reward (blessing) for being gullible, for believing without any reason to do so. :crazy:

sennekuyl · **#4197** by **sennekuyl** » Jul 19, 2015 12:30 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Funny, but I can't stand those computer generated voices. They irk me.

I thought it fit in well with the "space cult" theme. Shame it wasn't deliberate.

Shrunk · **#4198** by **Shrunk** » Jul 19, 2015 11:49 am

An example of fundy math: I've been involved in a discussion with a guy named "Ed Towle" on the CNSNews (sic) website. He claims that over half of gay men in the US are HIV positive, and that this is confirmed by the CDC. After several attempts to extract from him the source of his claim, he finally provided this:

(Y)ou refer to the "lie" that half of all homosexual men are HIV. But the REAL WORLD CDC says Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men.. According to the math I learned in REAL WORLD schools,57% is indeed over half....

DarthHelmet86 · **#4199** by **DarthHelmet86** » Jul 19, 2015 11:55 am

50 percent of the people with it are gay...thus 50 percent of gay people have it. By the same logic 50 percent of the people who have it are straight so 50 percent of straight people are infected.

Shrunk · **#4200** by **Shrunk** » Jul 19, 2015 12:01 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:50 percent of the people with it are gay...thus 50 percent of gay people have it. By the same logic 50 percent of the people who have it are straight so 50 percent of straight people are infected.

Thanks. I think I'll use that.

What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Who is online