April 30, 2012

Atheist Movement

Tyson gets it to a point. He does know but rejects God.

The question I have for Neil deGrasse Tyson is whether he is a believer in "naturalism". Which he is, so he is not being completely honest here about that. That being said, he does understand that movement we all see going on.



"in your face Atheists" indeed.

Tyson is right, Atheists shouldn't exist. "The only 'ist' I am, is a scientist." as it should be. Unfortunately you're a believer in naturalism also, so you're a "Naturalist" too. THAT is not science at all. That is a "movement" in itself sir.

Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.

Hopefully Neil deGrasse Tyson would be willing to admit that point. I will try to be hopeful that he would. THAT would be refreshing.

65 comments:

  1. Dan, you're a fucking dipshit

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not intended to be an 'argument' Dan, it's just me stating my opinion of your endless fucking stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The only 'ist' I am, is a scientist." as it should be.
    So much for creationists too then, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, creationism doesn't define me as, say, Ken Ham possibly as an example. Christianity certainly does. It is where I hang my hat. Thank the Lord!

      Delete
  4. Or theists also for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, that term is not for me, at all. It's like greeting someone with "hello human" instead of "hello Reynold" If someone called me a theist I would correct them with "Christian". Much like Tyson here.

      Delete
    2. You don't get it, do you, Dan? You are both a theist and a creationist. That's the stuff you believe. Just like Ken Ham.

      Delete
  5. Or, as is pointed out here any movement it seems.

    By the way Dan...how does a self-described agnostic who:

    He describes himself as “someone who doesn’t know, but hasn’t really seen evidence for it, but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it’s there, but if it’s not, won’t be forced to have to think something that is not otherwise supported.”
    at all equate to He does know but rejects God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone is not completely truthful there. Either the person is not completely forthright or God is lying, wrong, mistaken in Romans 1:18-21. So, of course I will side with infallible God instead of the fallible human. Would you expect anything less from me?

      Delete
    2. Would we expect anything less than absolute delusion from you? Of course not Dan. We've come to always expect you to side with a product of your imagination rather than deal with reality.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Dan...you are not being truthful, because looking at nature tells us nothing about biblegod.

      Look at all the hundreds of religions that existed, past and present. If nature pointed us to biblegod (ie "jesus") don't you think that missionaries would be redundant then? That at least some of the people in the new world would have twigged on and "accepted" the truth? Nope. No one knew a thing about biblegod until the xian missionaries came and told them of it.

      Idiots. That they had to go and tell others of their god themselves repudiates that verse you linked to.

      Delete
    4. I notice Dan, that you never answered my question: How does "someone who doesn’t know, but hasn’t really seen evidence for it, but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it’s there, but if it’s not, won’t be forced to have to think something that is not otherwise supported" somehow equate to someone who already knows but "rejects god"?

      You have, with no evidence whatsoever, accused Tyson of lying: Ever stop and think that maybe your philosophy, based on a millenia old book, might be wrong? That Tyson is not actually "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" but that he is actually waiting upon evidence?

      Delete
    5. >> How does "someone who doesn’t know, but hasn’t really seen evidence for it, but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it’s there, but if it’s not, won’t be forced to have to think something that is not otherwise supported" somehow equate to someone who already knows but "rejects god"?

      I reject the premise of your question. Everyone knows that God exists. Romans 1:18-21

      >> You have, with no evidence whatsoever,…

      O'rly? How are you certain of this perceived knowledge claim?

      >> accused Tyson of lying

      Did he? If not, how do you know that?

      >> Ever stop and think that maybe your philosophy, based on a millenia old book, might be wrong?

      That is completely impossible as you would not even be able to rationalize about it if it were false.

      Sye said "If the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical."

      >> That Tyson is not actually "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" but that he is actually waiting upon evidence?

      No. Hence the reason for my previous post. The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.

      In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.

      Delete
    6. Dan
      I reject the premise of your question. Everyone knows that God exists. Romans 1:18-21
      Your premise is patently absurd:

      If that was the case, Dan...why the need for missionaries or for orders to "proclaim the gospel" then? I've asked you that before.

      That verse is stupid...where in nature does it say that biblegod is the one who's pointed to by the "creation". I've pointed out to you before that it was people who looked too closely at "creation" in the field that wound up rejecting it. Remember Glenn Morton?

      Ever stop and think that maybe your philosophy, based on a millenia old book, might be wrong?
      That is completely impossible as you would not even be able to rationalize about it if it were false.
      More bullshit. It is false, and we don't need your "worldview" to rationalize anything. Other societies got along perfectly well without biblegod belief.

      ...accused Tyson of lying
      Did he? If not, how do you know that?
      And the xian dark-age mentality strikes again: Guilty until proven innocent. Dan...you made the charge that he was lying, you have to prove that he was.


      Sye said "If the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical."
      Sye is wrong...deal with it. I lose nothing if the bible is false.

      No. Hence the reason for my previous post. The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.
      Wrong. Your worldview has an outside agency mucking about with the natural world willy-nilly in contravention of the laws of nature. Your worldview accounts for nothing.

      Now for the ultimate piece of stupidity from you:
      In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence.
      Sorry, that's a baseless assertion on your part, and one of the most stupid as well. I do NOT "know" that biblegod exists, and I do NOT deny my own existence. The two are different topics.

      Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.
      Except that I am not denying my own existence. If that's what you say I'm doing, I want a fucking QUOTE where I actually say that I deny my own existence. Not some bullshit words that you shove into my mouth.


      You have, with no evidence whatsoever...
      O'rly? How are you certain of this perceived knowledge claim?
      You gave no fucking evidence...just baseless assertions. Like what you accuse Alex of doing, remember?

      Delete
    7. >> If that was the case, Dan...why the need for missionaries or for orders to "proclaim the gospel" then? I've asked you that before.

      If people go to Heaven that do not know God then the very worse thing we can do is to preach the Gospel. Right? No, everyone already knows God and we're to preach the glory of what Christ did for us. That is all. The elect will join that cause.

      >> I've pointed out to you before that it was people who looked too closely at "creation" in the field that wound up rejecting it.

      That is called a Hasty generalization fallacy. There are many, many thousands of scientists who believe in God, Creation, and knows the real problems that evolutionism and naturalism holds. This link is an appeal to popularity also. If a million people believe in something, does that make it true? If that is the case then what about the billions of Christians? Otherwise a relativist fallacy. You're all over the map here with your reasoning.

      >> Ever stop and think that maybe your philosophy, based on a millenia old book, might be wrong?

      How about you? No, it is impossible for Scripture to be false. Again, if the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical.

      >> Dan...you made the charge that he was lying, you have to prove that he was.

      Sure, Romans 1:18-21 Either God is a liar, which is illogical and impossible or a fallible man named Tyson is. QED

      >> Sye is wrong...deal with it. I lose nothing if the bible is false.

      Barely asserted. How do you know your reasoning is valid about the Bible being false? State your case.

      >> Wrong. Your worldview has an outside agency mucking about with the natural world willy-nilly in contravention of the laws of nature. Your worldview accounts for nothing.

      Barely asserted again? I am starting to see a pattern here.

      >>Sorry, that's a baseless assertion on your part, and one of the most stupid as well.

      No it wasn't you quote mined it to make the claim. I stated HOW that rational was concluded in the prior paragraph that you omitted.

      >>I do NOT "know" that biblegod exists,

      Another bare assertion.

      >>and I do NOT deny my own existence. The two are different topics.

      Yet another bare assertion. I made the claim already. You were created by God and you're asking for evidence. So you deny yourself to make that argument.

      >> Except that I am not denying my own existence.

      But you are if your asking for evidence of God. All you need is a mirror.

      >> just baseless assertions.

      I stated the entire argument with references noted. You just assert a denial. You have not backed up your claims of your knowledge. We find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case.

      You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot. For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality. You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. Both cannot be "true" at the same time and in the same way.

      So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?

      How do you know whose reality is the right reality?

      Delete
    8. Dan
      If people go to Heaven that do not know God then the very worse thing we can do is to preach the Gospel. Right? No, everyone already knows God and we're to preach the glory of what Christ did for us. That is all. The elect will join that cause.
      If there's an "elect" then the question still stands...if god has already picked out who goes to heaven or not, and if he's the one who makes it so that one accepts him or not, then why are people told to preach??

      If god made it so that we all "know" he exists, an assumption with no evidence whatsoever, then why did he not also make it so that we all "know" that CHRIST existed and how to get "saved" as well?

      If angels existed, don't you think that they'd be more reliable? If angels did it, we would at least all know that your god existed, all we'd have to do then is choose to obey or not.

      This "you all know that god exists" and "he commands us to proclaim his truth" is nothing more than the xian trying to have it both ways: Assuming that everyone knows that his god exists, yet acting as if that is not actually the case.

      I've pointed out to you before that it was people who looked too closely at "creation" in the field that wound up rejecting it.
      That is called a Hasty generalization fallacy. There are many, many thousands of scientists who believe in God, Creation, and knows the real problems that evolutionism and naturalism holds.
      Citation needed. Besides, is this not the "appeal to popularity" that you complain of me? If you Still want to get into numbers though, those so-called "many, many thousands of scientists" are only a drop in the bucket compared to those who accept evolutionary reality.

      This link is an appeal to popularity also.
      Nope. That link shows examples of people who believed the bible, and who when they got the chance to actually examine nature to see if it matched up with creationism, found that it did not.

      Think: If creationism was true, then why does every creationist organization out there have a "statement of faith" that one must sign and adhere to before they are ever allowed to do any research?

      Aren't you bible believers supposed to "test all things" and hold on to that which is good?

      Oath taking is not science, it's indoctrination.


      If a million people believe in something, does that make it true?
      Nope. It's the evidence that best determines that.

      If that is the case then what about the billions of Christians? Otherwise a relativist fallacy. You're all over the map here with your reasoning.
      I've already said that it is NOT the case.

      You like to throw around big words without knowing how to use them properly it seems.


      Wrong. Your worldview has an outside agency mucking about with the natural world willy-nilly in contravention of the laws of nature. Your worldview accounts for nothing.
      Barely asserted again? I am starting to see a pattern here.
      Yes, your projecting. Does not your bible describe "miracle" after miracle done by your god in response to prayer? My statement stands.

      Delete
    9. and I do NOT deny my own existence. The two are different topics.
      Yet another bare assertion. I made the claim already. You were created by God and you're asking for evidence. So you deny yourself to make that argument.
      Baseless assertion of yours repeated. There is something called evolution which explains how we got here, and it's got a lot more evidence behind it than some god who can't even be bothered to put "Jesus/Jehovah made us" somewhere on our bodies.

      We both know that we are here...we disagree though on just how we got here.

      Seriously...even if one were to buy that ridiculous assertion of yours, how do you know that it's your god who did it, and not something else?

      You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot. For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality.
      Someone has already done that. So I guess baby-killing is OK if God does it? If it's ok for god to do it then why isn't it ok for us to do it? After all, you claim that biblegod is the standard for "goodness" in that statement.

      You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. Both cannot be "true" at the same time and in the same way.
      And the stupidity of that kind of thinking in your worldview is exposed above. You xians can't have it both ways, though you try.

      Delete
    10. >>Sure, Romans 1:18-21 Either God is a liar, which is illogical and impossible or a fallible man named Tyson is. QED

      That is a false dichotomy. There is also the option that there is no god and the HUMAN(S) who wrote Romans (like every single other book of the Bible) were making stuff up/lying/saying whatever it took to get more converts and rules out god being a liar by virtue of non-existance.

      Also, I do NOT know that Yahweh (or any other deity) exisits (barring actual, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary and the Bible does not count because that's circular reasoning (the Bible is true because it was written by Yahweh, which we know because the Bible says so, and it can't be wrong because Yahweh is infallible, as stated in the Bible)), and in fact am rather sure that none of them exist, ergo Yahweh is lying, nonexistent, or fallible. And this is of course ignoring the possibility that Yahweh only revealed such truths to the people who were alive back then, which would mean that even if you're right and Yahweh DOES exist and did reveal the truth of his existence such that everyone would know it AND I'm right that I do not know of his/her/its existence are not mutually exclusive statements.

      Delete
    11. >> and in fact am rather sure that none of them exist, ergo Yahweh is lying, nonexistent, or fallible.

      You and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

      So, are you absolutely certain that your reasoning about this is valid? If so, how are you certain?

      God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).

      Delete
    12. You used Romans 1:18-21 to state that "Everyone knows that God exists.". The Bible is also supposed to be the word of Yahweh. I do not know that Yahweh exists (if I did, I would still make sure that what I knew was in fact true, and should it prove to be either false or unsubstantiated (and it IS unsubstantiated), it would then be dismissed and subsequently not a thing that I know, but rather a thing that is at best, an acknowledged possibility), and therefore, logically, Yahweh is fallible, a liar, and/or nonexistent, OR Romans was in fact, written by HUMANS and Yahweh's existence/knowledge thereof has exactly nothing to do with the statement. This follows from the fact that my own knowledge (or lack thereof in this case) directly contradicts the supposedly infallible and all-true Bible that is allegedly the word of Yahweh who is claimed to be infallible and his book to be the absolute truth. Omnipotence is completely unrelated to this (and opens its own can of paradoxes when combined with the fact that Yahweh is also supposedly omniscient and omnibenevolent, but I'm sure you've heard those before here).

      Look at it this way. If say I'm infallible, do you believe me? Most likely not. If I then tell you that what I say is nothing but the absolute truth, odds are, you would simply dismiss me as either a liar or crazy, but I go on to tell you that I am both omnipotent and omniscient. At this point, you are more than likely calling the loony bin to hook me up with a padded room. Now, why should Yahweh's claims carry any more weight? What is to say that Yahweh was (assuming existence thereof for a moment) not in fact lying about his/her/its character to attract more followers? But of course this isn't the case, because the being that said it was infallible said that it had all those attributes.

      Delete
    13. Or you're in complete denial or lying.

      So this is why lying is blasphemy. When you lie, since you were made in God's image, you literally are calling God a liar. God cannot lie, as I have already explained. There is only one other option. Either trust the infallible God or a fallible man. So, you're a liar for accusing God as a liar. You are storing up God's wrath upon yourself. Good luck with that.

      Delete
  6. Dan:

         You are still falsely claiming that people "know" your god exits but ar suppressing it. The fact is that many people including my self do not believe your god exists because the evidence is lacking. I gave some examples of what would convince me. It seems I'm still waiting, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So let me understand this right Pvb,

      You want the Creator of the Universe to bow to your requests, submit to you, because you already deny the evidence at hand? All the while remaining to be Lord OVER all. I would expect more from you. How ironic that is.

      Delete
    2. How difficult would it be for an omnipotent creator deity to do that very thing, Dan?

      Would it be fair to say it'd be easier for Him than it is for you to blink an eye?

      Delete
    3. Yes it would Wem. You demanding it though says more about you then about Him. None of that is required by His followers that already know Him. Are you prepared to burst into flames? Be glad He doesn't honor that wish.

      I have pointed this out before: A sinner without being washed of sins cannot be in the presence of God because he/she would burst into flames. (Genesis 32:30) The people wanted Moses to deal with God even, because of the booming presence. God is perfect so we must be perfect to be in His presence. Without the mediator we would perish (1 Timothy 2:5) Many want to see proof of God, but as sinners, they would all perish so God stays away, for their own good. Look what happened to Saul (now Paul) he was blinded by God's holy presence of light.

      Delete
    4. Yes it would Wem. You demanding it though says more about you then about Him.

      No one's demanding anything.

      Delete
    5. Dan: How many verses in the bible talk about asking god for things through prayer, and yet when someone dares to ask for proof, you (like all xians do when confronted with this situation) go on that "how dare you make god do what YOU want" thing.

      Get off.

      Delete
    6. So Dan dodges by saying that actual proof of gods' existence would kill us.

      Bullshit. Here's why: Remember Melchizedek? Or the "angel" who supposedly wrestled with David? Or how about just the angels themselves doing it then?

      I note that Dan has accidentally shot down another one of his ideas: He had said that God is perfect so we must be perfect to be in His presence

      Yet god is allowed to kill, order/allow rapes in the OT, etc. Yet when man does those things it's "wrong". How is that "perfect"?

      Delete
    7. Damn...it was Jacob that the "angel of the lord" was supposed to have wrestled with.

      Delete
  7. Dan:

         That's just it. There is no evidence at hand. And shouting "your ability to think is proof that my god exists!!" until you're blue in the face will not change that fact. My beliefs are influenced by evidence, not by you playing a game of "let's pretend there's evidence." Furthermore, I have made a commitment. You claim that non-christians are lying when they say they can be convinced by appropriate evidence. I have given some examples of what I would consider appropriate evidence. As the saying goes, it's "put up or shut up." Well, I have "put up." How about yourself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pvb, "God needs to come and visit in person in order for me to believe"

      Me: Erm, Christ appeared

      Pvb: " No. To me, not others"

      *facepalm

      Delete
    2. Pvb: "God needs to reveal Himself to us"

      Me: "He has. Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.)

      Pvb: "No. That is not enough"

      *double facepalm

      Delete
    3. Dan, do you have evidence that Jesus existed?

      Delete
    4. Dan, we have no evidence that christ if he even existed, was who he said he was. Think: One appearance 2000 years ago is not the same thing as an actual personal meeting, is it?

      Delete
  8. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?

    Ahh yes. A favorite canard for creationists and practitioners of various forms of woo. The ID crowd in particular spend hours going back and forth on this one. I think it even has an official number.

    Certainly, some scientists have made the firm statement that naturalism is the appropriate realm for science. But let's
    do what you ask - let's extend science to include the supernatural. Of course, we'd want to keep all the techniques that science uses - that's how we avoid bias and human error.

    Show me something that is now different by that extension. Prayer, for example. Can we change outcomes by prayer from what science would have expected to happen? If I drop a rock, can you make it not fall to the ground via prayer? If the rock doesn't fall as expected, can you repeat the effect so that we know it wasn't some other factor? Is it affected by shielding between you and the rock? Do other prayers interfere? Is there a distance factor?

    So there you are - I've just asked a set of perfectly good scientific questions and involved the supernatural. And the result? Squat. There has not been one verified example of prayer having a concrete impact. And this is the problem with applying science to the supernatural:

    It never adds additional evidence.

    Judging by the clip, you are doing Tyson a disservice. He is totally evidence driven. If there was any credible evidence pointing to God's existence, he'd probably consider it. But it never shows up. And when you consider that a significant percentage of scientists are also Christian and presumably would be open to supernatural evidence (if it appeared), it's hard to blame this on the close-mindedness of scientists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Dan,

      I think some of the notions you posit in this thread have already been thoroughly dealt with. Just in case you don't recall, allow me to refresh your memory with the following link to that thread:

      http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/09/still-no-evidence.html?showComment=1285983063990#c7265442898051653108

      If you require a little more understanding though, I posted some links over on Alex's blog for you -- material Reynold previously linked to, also -- as a courtesy reminder just in case you haven't already examined it or if doing so has slipped your mind completely -- (which would be understandable -- or if you prefer, intelligible -- given how busy you reportedly are with all your family activities)

      Here's a little preview: "Intelligibility is the ability of some thing to be an object of awareness and be identified and integrated into the sum of one’s knowledge without contradiction." (Dawson Bethrick)

      If you are not satisfied with this definition of "intelligibility," maybe you could supply your own, along with citation. I'm sure it will be a breeze locating one somewhere within pressupositional material, right?

      Ydemoc

      Delete
  9. "Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence."

    Thanks for the laugh, Dan. Haven't been over here in a while, but on opening this page I was not disappointed or surprised to see you employing the same old fractured logic that you have puked out for the last couple years.

    Your statement is absurd. The philosophy of'Naturalism' was arrived at after extensive searches for evidence of supernaturalism at work. Until some is found and validated, Naturalism is alive and well.

    It is comical as all get out to see you try to twist it to say that all this observable supernatural evidence is somehow "ruled out."

    Absurd beyond, description, that.

    Your old friend,

    Froggie

    ReplyDelete
  10.      "Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence."
         Essentially, Dan complains that naturalism presupposes that there is nothing supernatural. I think that we can all agree that anyone who employs a presuppositional argument is being unreasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  11.      Oh, Dan, I summarized your dislike for naturalism on my blog. No need to thank me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get the relativist fallacy accusation but we all presuppose. You reason your reasoning is valid. So did I, until Christ was Lord of my reasoning. Then, and only then, I had the avenue to knowledge. Christ saved my reasoning. You?

      Delete
    2. "So did I, until Christ was Lord of my reasoning. Then, and only then, I had the avenue to knowledge."

      By your own argument then you had NO POSSIBLE ROUTE to knowledge before you had 'knowledge'! How, then, did you reason your way to Jesus??

      Delete
    3. Well, Dan? Going to respond? Or are you going to use your stock excuse that you're a busy family man?

      Delete
    4. Dan, it would seem, is too busy to even post his standard excuse.

      Delete
    5. Yet he has time to post another whole entry! Dodger Dan indeed!

      Delete
  12. Since biblegod became "lord of your reasoning" Dan, have you or have you not ever been wrong about anything, ever?

    If so, then your reasoning and therefore your "god" (assuming he exists) isn't perfect. Or, maybe the "lord" of your reasoning doesn't exist?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Have you ever noticed that people are so stupidified by hate, they display their ignorance by claiming that Jesus never even existed. LOL! That's right, ignore all the other scholars and years of evidence, then find the one or two crackpots that fit your presuppositions and pretend you're smrt. Never mind that such a ludicrous claim is easily dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Boob, going to deal with the FACT that you've been practically libeling me over on your blog (here, if anyone wants to read Bob's 'wisdom' - http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/hail-samhain.html)? You suggested that people who tell lies about others should back up their claims. So are you going to?

      Let's remind ourselves of your claims shall we?

      You wrote an article attacking an 'atheist' Mac user who lives in/near Halesowen in the West Midlands. As I am the ONLY atheist you are aware of in this area it doesn't take much thought to see that you are directly referencing me. So, what did you say about me?

      1. You called me a drunk

      2. You stated that I had been evicted from my home

      3. You stated I had been fired from my job due to 'uncontrolled outbursts of rage'

      4. You said that I lived in my car

      ...and let's not forget that, in a previous encounter, you -

      5. called my wife a prostitute, after making the claim that I frequent prostitutes

      How do you respond to the FACT that you are DIRECTLY lying about me? C'mon Blobby, you're gobby enough when you think you're in safe company (like the weasel coward you are) but you mysteriously turn utterly yellow bellied when confronted with the possibility that you might have to address the fall out from one of your many many lies.

      Oh, and you've repeatedly described me as 'English', which is also wrong considering I was born in Glasgow.

      I doubt you'll respond, because you are a pathetic sad sack.

      Delete
    2. As for your other claim, have you ever bothered to track down the supposed 'Jesus texts'? Or do you just trust that they say what you've been told they say? You see, Bob, unlike you I actually value truth, so I went and found these things for myself - http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/historical-texts-and-jesus.html

      BTW, you criticised Jason Rosenhouse over at the Christian Post website (here - http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-professor-pens-book-about-the-anti-evolution-frontline-72126/), but didn't answer when I asked you whether you'd actually read the book you were attacking. I wonder why?

      Probably because you haven't read it, just like you don't read anything you attack, you moron.

      Delete
    3. Well stormy, it looks like Alex has pretty much showed you up here...He can't do it on your own blog because, coward that you are, it doesn't seem to allow comments.

      Delete
    4. Looks like Cow(ard)boy Bob has run away again. What a craven, gutless, coward he is!

      Delete
  14. Have you ever noticed that people are so stupidified by hate, they display their ignorance by claiming that Jesus never even existed. LOL!

    There's only one person here stupefied by hate, Puddlebringer.

    ReplyDelete
  15.      Ah, yes, Norman, he doesn't just make stuff up. He links back to the stuff he made up and calls it "documentation."
         As a practical matter, of course, there is no evidence that Jesus was not a fiction invented by the early christians. All claimed "evidence" for his existence goes back to trusting those early writings. Don't get me wrong. There have been a lot of people for whom we no longer have any evidence of their existence. Jesus might be one of them. But Norman's claim of "years of evidence" is simply without merit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alex:

         Norman is, of course, a pathological liar. But have you noticed that no fundamentalist christian will ever say that anything he does is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, you're not going to see Dan criticising one of his own, no matter how vile the lies Sorensen spews are.

      Delete
  17. So DAN, Hezekiah and I have been having a conversation over on his blog... I have come to the conclusion that you, Sye and Chris all hate Hezekiah because you are unwilling to come to his defense on his own blog despite blaring holes in his arguments and his temper getting the better of him.

    Why do you hate one of your own DAN? Why wouldn't you be willing to defend one of your fellow disciples?

    You must subscribe to the philosophy of "I only have to run faster than the slowest person."

    Seems kind of cruel to leave Hezekiah all alone on the short bus.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Dan,

    Looks like Satan is out trying to cause strife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Hezekiah, I am trying to get them over to your blog to help you defend yourself.

      You can't seem to form a coherent sentence or comprehend what your textual adversaries are actually saying, I figured someone with a better understanding of the English language would help. Since I'm pretty sure it's your second language at this point.

      Delete
  19. Nobody is under any obligation to respond to arbitrary "arguments".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe that's why so few are at your blog now?

      Delete
  20. Nobody is under any obligation to respond to your imaginations.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yet of your own free will, you respond nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you're more fond of Satan than you're willing to admit...

      Delete
    2. He's addicted to the attention, and has taken to appearing on other blogs attempting to goad people into commenting over on his. This has become more obvious as we've all given up visiting his blog due to it being nothing more than copy/pasted Bahnsen, Van Til, and Bible texts.

      Delete
  22. Oh, look! Atheo-fascists doing hateful libel. Again. Why not, they're more than willing to illegally use other people's material and then pretend it's justified. Naturally, they have excuses and logical fallacies to hide their laughable "morality" behind.

    Hey, Norman! I do documentation. You make stuff up. 'Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Care to back you accusations up, Puddles? Try to keep up. I saw your comment on the side here and this post is months old.

      Do you still prohibit comments on your "stormbringer's thunger" blog you coward?

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>