Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a Christian commenter comes slinking back, and a question: why believe one and not the others?

(Januaryy 22 – an addendum.  We have one Christian who answered the question at the end of this post.  You may find what he said here. He believes in other gods in addition to his god.  There are arguments for and, of course, against this in the bible.)

Happy New Year!  Welcome new “followers”.  I noted that some of you are theists, so this post might interest you. If you do decide to reply on your own blog, please do let me know.  Some of you might recall a lengthy exchange between myself and a self-described Christian commenter named KD on this blog.  After insisting that he was leaving, that this blog was pointless etc etc, he has slunk back to give me a lovely bit of glurge.

all images thanks to atheistmemebase.com

all images thanks to atheistmemebase.com

“I had been dating a girl for a month and a half. I was head over heels for her. I had prayed one night that I wanted to marry her. If it was God’s will.

Then December 20, 2007 came along. I had a meeting with a Staff member of the College Ministry that I was involved with. We planned on meeting at the mall but something came up and he couldn’t make it. So I had some time and decided to wander around a little bit.

I guess God took me seriously…as I was praying I was led to a Jewelry store. I figured I could find out about the 4 C’s of diamonds and get an idea of price of rings. I sat down with the sales woman and she explained what Cut, Color, Clarity, and Carat all meant and gave me pricing on a diamond and ring setting. The whole time I’m praying that God is leading me during this whole process and that as I’m looking at these diamonds and ring settings that He shows me the ring for the woman he desires me to marry.

Well, the sales woman was good. And the store had a good deal going on. And I walked out having bought an engagement ring…

A little over a week later. I’m watching a movie with my girlfriend and our conversation turned to marriage. We had both felt like we could see ourselves getting married one day. This was the first time we had this conversation with one another. As the days went on we talked about getting engaged and planning for a wedding. I asked her to start looking at rings and what she would like so I had some ideas of what to get her (she had no idea I had already bought a ring).

One night, when I got to her place she had been studying up on diamonds and looking at rings. I go with her and she pulls the ring setting that she liked up and started by saying “I don’t know how much you are looking to spend on a ring, I like this ring setting…but I don’t like the diamond…I would like it in this cut, color, clarity, and carat.”

After she was done showing me I excused myself and went in the bathroom. I began to cry over the ring she had picked out. We loved each other, we both wanted to get married to each other…but our first commitment was to honoring God. and I had made a vow to God when I bought the ring. That I would wait to marry the woman who the ring I bought was intended for.

So, I sat in the bathroom and cried. I was overwhelmed.

You see, the ring setting she showed me, the cut, color, clarity, and carat of the diamond she desired and described was identical to the ring God led me to buy in the store that day.

My wife’s wedding ring is more than a token of our love for one another, more than a symbol of our commitment to one another. Her ring, for me, is evidence of God’s love and grace. Of God’s promises and His answer to prayers.”

This is “how to respond to a theist 101”, so if you are new to the procedure, feel free to create your own rebuttal below in comments.   I’ve already done so in my response to his comment, which you can link to in the next paragraph.

You can read his entire post here and my response here. The question I want to ask everyone, especially theists, is:

This story is similar to so many others e.g. the theist claims that their god answered their prayer positively.  It was offered to impress an atheist with how “real” this god was and how it did things.  Would you accept this story if it invoked Allah or the Wiccan Goddess or any other of a hundred thousand gods? Why or why not?

Advertisements

175 responses to “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a Christian commenter comes slinking back, and a question: why believe one and not the others?

    • Figured you’d get a kick out of KD’s “deductive reasoning” this time (still in comments over on the other post):

      “While you believe you understand my beliefs, you likely have no idea what sect I was raised, or that through high school and my early college years I stopped believing God existed. Like you, my parents allowed me the freedom to be open minded and make choices regarding my beliefs. It’s a generational thing. I say that because I picture you in your mid 20′s. I could be wrong, but I would venture that you are approximately 24-26 years old and have been married for approximately 2-3 years to the husband you ardently love. I could in fact be way off in my assessment of your age and length of marriage but that’s why I prefer conversation versus an argument.”

      With this, plus insisting that deductive reasoning told him I used to be a Roman Catholic, with a second choice as Presbyterian (after I told him), it’s no wonder that KD is so addled with religion. He can’t even look at my info about myself or read anything on this forum but must go with what KD “feels” is true. He’s only decades off about everything.

      • I had an apologist just last night (after reading your post, actually) try on a very similar “See gawd exists!” example. His version: meeting over 100 converts whose testimonies were convincing. With your words fresh in my head I had to point out to him that being an evangelical Christian heavily involved in apologetics, ministry work and church activities the likelihood of him meeting a few enthusiastic Christian converts was pretty high.

        The confirmation bias going on in these people’s heads is quite frightening. Same thing happened to the Republicans in the last election. They’d created such a bubble of delusion that they simply couldn’t see reality, and subsequently lost their minds when they got hammered in the General. I read earlier this week that Frank Lunz (Teapublican pollster and spindoctor) went momentarily insane after the election. Simply put, this type of closed, self-affirming behaviour is seriously unhealthy.

      • Indeed. 🙂 KD has also decided to claim I have said something that I have not (see the comment on the pingback to this blog post). It is sad, but somewhat enjoyable, to see such blatant nonsense from a man who claims to be such a great Christian.

      • I do like this post. Thanks for getting my story out there! I would like to point out a coincidence. I read your testimony…well at least parts of it. And while my “guess” on your age was way off, which I admitted it might be in the quote you posted. If you are 47 and been married for 22 years and lived with him for 2 years (24 total) .

        Were you 24 or 25 when you got married?

        When did you become an atheist? Was it before or after you and your husband married? If after you got married how long?

      • wow.

        what you said ““While you believe you understand my beliefs, you likely have no idea what sect I was raised, or that through high school and my early college years I stopped believing God existed. Like you, my parents allowed me the freedom to be open minded and make choices regarding my beliefs. It’s a generational thing. I say that because I picture you in your mid 20′s. I could be wrong, but I would venture that you are approximately 24-26 years old and have been married for approximately 2-3 years to the husband you ardently love. I could in fact be way off in my assessment of your age and length of marriage but that’s why I prefer conversation versus an argument.”

        I do love how you now are trying to pretend that you were really “right” by now saying “Were you 24 or 25 when you got married?” 🙂

        I do love the questions you ask but you can’t answer them. what does it matter when I became an atheist, KD? I lost my faith in Christianity before getting married. I researched and tried other religions for some years. And finally ended up an atheist since there is no evidence for any supernatural beings/forces/events.

        Now your turn!

        “This story is similar to so many others e.g. the theist claims that their god answered their prayer positively. It was offered to impress an atheist with how “real” this god was and how it did things. Would you accept this story if it invoked Allah or the Wiccan Goddess or any other of a hundred thousand gods? Why or why not?”

  1. When I was in college, a great many of my friends saw themselves as pagans. Consequently, I have heard these stories of remarkable coincidence as evidence of the existence of a great many gods.

  2. I would not accept this story associated with any god. For me, it’s ridiculous to think that any “higher power” would give shit about a ring. I’m an atheist, but if any god does exists, I would hope he/she would help some poor kid with cancer first and not some simple minded dork who is looking for any story to justify his belief. Nice post

    • A simple minded dork. That’s the best you could come up with?

      It’s rather simple minded to not believe if a god exists that he is capable of doing both help a child with cancer and providing a simple minded dork justification for his beliefs.

      It’s always amazing that atheists have to reduce theists to “simple minded” or some other lower status. Do atheists do this to justify their own beliefs?

      I’d be interested in how you determine someone as “simple minded” or as you put it a “simple minded dork”?

      • I think “simple minded” is a perfect description for the type of illogical thinking presented in the post above about god’s will. It’s the same illogical thinking that goes along with believers explaining god’s existence due to the beauty of a sunset or the “miracle” of child birth. Me eating food and then crapping a turd out of my butt is no more of a miracle than a woman having a baby. Please stop by my blog if you care to and comment more there, I really don’t want to clog this blog with our comments. Take care and thanks for commenting.

      • So is “simple minded” simply the belief in a god or is it the inability to think logically?

        If you don’t want to clog Vel’s blog with our comments, which I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. You could always post on my response to her post on my blog:

        http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/less-than/

        The fact that you compare child birth to taking a dump leads me to wonder if you know anything about a woman having a baby. Seems rather that it’s a simple minded response to my inquiry of what the phrase actually means.

        Some how the biological process of digesting food is equivalent of a woman having a baby. Which in one case they are both natural processes that occur. However, a man cannot bear children. So you eating food and crapping your pants is not the same as a woman having a child because both men and women can eat and crap but only women can bear children. Do you see where I’m going with this?

        Or must I explain the logical process that your analogy of pooping and having children are not in the least similar things?

      • You may both comment here. As usual, reality doesn’t quite match with what KD wants to assume.

        And please do explain logical processes, KD. You have yet to show that I have used any logical fallacies and you can take this time to do so in addition to explaining your claims to DA.

      • Now we have Vel claiming that my assumption that she would not mind if we (both) commented here as usual doesn’t quite match the reality that she does not mind if we both comment here. Please, Vel do show me how this does not match reality?

        Or is this just another prime example of an atheists who believes they’ve found evidence to support their claims?

        Does Vel understand irony at all? Requesting again that I show here that she’s used logical fallacies. Well, Vel, if you committed them what is the reason I must show them to you? Because you believe them not to exist? Because I made the claim? Again, the reality is that if you have committed any number of logical fallacies in our conversation it is already evident in and of themselves. It requires no one to “show it” to you as if you are logical and understand logical fallacies than you are able to identify it yourself.

        If you are not however, logical or do not understand logical fallacies then someone would have to “show you.” You seemed to believe that you were logical and understood when a logical fallacy was being committed so I guess I assumed you were intelligent enough that I need not show it to you.

        Now, as logical fallacies are evident without the need of another to show them to someone who understands them we are left with two claims: Vel’s claim that she did not commit any logical fallacies and my claim that she did. Vel must learn to understand that the evidence is already there and will support the correct claim.

        Now, putting aside bias and using logic is required for one to analyze the data. Vel, proved incapable of being able to put aside her prejudice and discrimination against theism to be able to accurately analyze the conversation. Of course, this is my opinion and can only be confirmed by the evidence just as Vel’s opinion that I am lying or the evidence that I claim is in fact not there may also be confirmed or rejected by the same evidence.

      • Yep, KD, you said “If you don’t want to clog Vel’s blog with our comments, which I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. You could always post on my response to her post on my blog” This makes little sense as puncutuated. However, it seems to mean that you could comment over on your blog because I wouldn’t mind you both posting over there. This is why I’ve taken to pointing out your problems with the language. You can clear this up by writing a real sentence.

        And yes, Vel does understand irony. I understand it very very well. Of course, you cannot show any of these supposedly logical fallacies you have claimed I have made. I’m still waiting, KD. I’ll be more than happy to admit them *if* you can show them. Still waiting.

        You see, KD, you have no evidence that I have done what you have claimed. This is why you need to show them to me because, as it stands, there is nothing that supports your claims as true. Just as I do not believe people who claime to have been probed by little grey aliens, I do not believe you because there is no evidence. I will ask you a question: Do you believe that Mohammed flew to Jerusalem on a magical horse? Why or why not? It could be anyone making the claim and as long as they, or you, have no evidence, and refuse consistently to provide it, I will not accept the claim as true. You cannot support your claims with reality. You’re right, if there were any logical fallacies committed, they would be there. Show them if you think that they are truly there. Now, I could make the claim that you said that you stole money from your former church in your posts. I could say that claims are already evident in and of themselves and that you committed the crime. I could say that you can identify those words you typed yourself. And I could refuse to show where I saw these words from you. Are you okay with that or would you demand evidence?

        Please show me that I don’t understand logic fallacies and I am not logical. You see, KD, you’re piling up lies upon lies, having no evidence to support any of them. I have discussed logical fallacies numerous times in my blog and in the comments of my blog. Do you want evidence of that I do indeed understand logical fallacies? Sure, since I can provide them. https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/#comment-2448 https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/#comment-2448
        https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/#comment-2438
        More? Why sure, just let me know.
        So, your claim that someone would have to show me is a lovely dodge based on a false claims about me. Since I do known quite a bit about logic and logical fallacies and I have supported that with evidence, your claim that there are logical fallacies that I cannot recognize in my posts is again based on false premises. Again, you have made a positive claim that I, someone who knows logic and logical fallacies cannot confirm. This means that you must support your claims with evidence. And aw, another attempt to insult me. That does seem to be the Christian thing to do.
        I would pay to see your use your “argument” with a police officer. Honest officer, there is evidence that I wasn’t running the speed limit. No, I can’ t show you it but you have no choice but to agree with me. I can just imagine the look on the officer’s face. 🙂

        You of course again make more baseless claims about me. Please do show me that I am somehow “incapable of being able to put aside her predjudice and discrimination against theism” and how this effects your inability to show me these supposed logical fallacies. I have accurately analyzed the conversation, so your claim that I haven’t also must be supported by evidence provided by you. Your claims that I have not accurately analyzed something is just more vague claims, KD. It is indeed your opinion and yep, it has to be supported by the evidence that you have yet to provide. I have provided evidence that you are lying, KD. I’ve done so repeatedly. Need evidence? Sure: you compared me with a liar, Tiger Woods, and have yet to show that I have lied: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/#comment-2457 you tried to revise it here: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/#comment-2473

        I like this one a lot ““I don’t have time to go through and show you everytime you make a strawman, argument from silence, or argument from ignorance.” But we’ve had post after post from you. So you do have time, and just lied about this for an excuse. You also lied when you claimed that I said that religion caused all of the harm in the world. It’s time after time. Now, you see that I can provide evidence with no problem and no excuses. I’m sorry you refuse to and evidently can’t.

        So, I have claims, that I know logic and logical fallacies and that you have lied, and evidence to support them. You have claims and no evidence at all, only opinions.

        Still waiting for your evidence to support your claims.

        Still waiting for you to answer my question: This story is similar to so many others e.g. the theist claims that their god answered their prayer positively. It was offered to impress an atheist with how “real” this god was and how it did things. Would you accept this story if it invoked Allah or the Wiccan Goddess or any other of a hundred thousand gods? Why or why not?”

        Let’s go look at your next comment post and see if you have!

      • As punctuated Vel? You mean “If you don’t want to clog Vel’s blog with our comments, (comma) which I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. (period)”

        Yes, as my comment was connected to you not minding us clogging your blog…but since DA was concerned (or simply trying to increase hits on his blog) I continued after the period with.

        “You could always…”

        Now, I could see your point that my sentence would be confusing as to what you wouldn’t mind us doing had I used a comma rather than a period.

        I do enjoy your “evidence” Vel. The fact that you believe what you use as “evidence” to support your claims is quite comical.

        It’s like your officer analogy. Where when the officer pulls you over you say, “No officer I have evidence I wasn’t speeding…I took this selfie right as I drove past your which shows, me, my speed (55), you, and the posted speed limit (55).”

        And the officer responds, “Yes, it shows all those things except, I pulled you over because you were driving erratically trying to take a picture of yourself with your phone.”

        Once you figure out how this adapted analogy applies to our entire conversation (original and present), please feel free to respond!

      • How nice. You wrote “It’s like your officer analogy. Where when the officer pulls you over you say, “No officer I have evidence I wasn’t speeding…I took this selfie right as I drove past your which shows, me, my speed (55), you, and the posted speed limit (55). And the officer responds, “Yes, it shows all those things except, I pulled you over because you were driving erratically trying to take a picture of yourself with your phone.”

        I actually wrote: “I would pay to see your use your “argument” with a police officer. Honest officer, there is evidence that I wasn’t running the speed limit. No, I can’ t show you it but you have no choice but to agree with me. I can just imagine the look on the officer’s face. “ Hmmm, now let’s look at the context of my comment.. KD has claimed that I have made logical fallacies, but he refuses to provide evidence of this claim. My imaginary scenario postulates KD making a claim, that he was not speeding and has evidence supporting this, and again not being able to provide evidence to support his claim. KD, what you intend with your “adapted analogy” is anyone’s guess. I ask you to explain how you think this “adapted analogy”of yours“applies to our entire conversation (original and present)”. If you want, you can keep pretending that I am simply too unintelligent to understand. In your adapted analogy, you seem to be trying to imply that I am offering evidence for something else than requested. Please do show where this has occurred.

        Now, let’s look at your comment about clogging the blog. Unsuprisingly, KD, you did not post the entire relevant part. I did and I can do so again: ““If you don’t want to clog Vel’s blog with our comments, which I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. You could always post on my response to her post on my blog.” You left off the last bit and it does seem to be intentional.

        You have used a period. However, using a period does not magically make a sentence. The first part of what you call a sentence is this: “If you don’t want to clog Vel’s blog with our comments,” This is a clause, KD. The second part of what you call a sentence is “which I’m sure she wouldn’t mind.” This is also a clause. There is no subject or verb in these two clauses, and that means that there is no sentence, period ending or not. Clauses are parts of sentences that modify the subject and/or the verb. The only sentence in the relevant text is the last part, which you did not include in your post: “You could always post on my response to her post on my blog.” So, looking at your supposed sentence “If you don’t want to clog Vel’s blog with our comments, which I’m sure she wouldn’t mind.”, we do not know what is meant. What would Vel not mind, KD? That my blog being clogged or that comment could be made on your blog?

        Pity that I don’t believe in heaven, because it would be nifty if Mrs. Songer, my 8th grade English teacher, could watch this exchange.

        and don’t forget!

        Still waiting for you to answer my question: This story is similar to so many others e.g. the theist claims that their god answered their prayer positively. It was offered to impress an atheist with how “real” this god was and how it did things. Would you accept this story if it invoked Allah or the Wiccan Goddess or any other of a hundred thousand gods? Why or why not?”

      • I do like your analogy in how it fails. It is your perspective of “evidence.” I never said that I could not show you the evidence and I’ve simply been making a point about it ever since. A point which you have failed to understand.

        I’ll explain it again. If you are running around telling everyone 1+1=1 and no one tells you that you are wrong does that make what you claim is right? What if someone tells you that you are wrong that 1+1 does not = 1 but doesn’t show you why, again does that mean that 1+1=1 because they didn’t show you why you are wrong?

        You seem to believe that one must show you the evidence to be proven right. That is not believing in reality but rather an irrational argument.

        Further, you bring up my punctuation/grammatical errors is further evidence of my point/claim. If you had not “shown” me my errors but simply said I should proof read my work better as I made grammatical errors, I might not know where I made them but that doesn’t mean they did not occur or do not exist.

        Let’s review my claim: You made any number of logical fallacies in your post/comments. I then proceeded to explain that since you have such a grasp on when others make logical fallacies you should be able to easily identify when you yourself make them. As the fallacies you make are the same you claim others to make. You then requested me to show evidence of your logical fallacies, of which I declined because someone such as yourself who probably thinks they “know all of the logical fallacies” should surely be able to identify when they have made one. You then claim that you re-read and couldn’t find a single logical fallacy made in your post or comments.

        I will continue not to show you where you made the mistakes because I don’t have too. You don’t seem to realize that me not showing your them is not a requirement of their existence. The evidence is already evident if they exist.

        Your analogy is based off of the presumption that my claim is false. That’s why if fails. And that was the reason for me adapting your officer analogy.

        You haven’t realized that your arguments have been based off of assumptions. In the analogy the person being pulled over assumed that the only logical reason for being pulled over was for speeding. The officer however had a different reason for pulling them over. So sort of like you said, the evidence being furnished did not support the one claiming they had the “right” evidence but the opposite. It supported the reason the officer pulled the driver over.

        The reason I would have preferred a conversation vs. an argument is that in a conversation one is not trying to prove they are right. This is also the reason why I ignored any number of your requests or questions. The conversation was never about proving religion wrong or right, it was about beliefs, practices, and attitudes that are negative or positive. You’ve completely missed this because you had your own agenda.

        You still won’t see it because you are closed-minded and you irrationally believe in something that I’m not even trying to discuss with you. You are simply trying to justify or prove that you are right. You haven’t actually taken any time to look at my comments and consider what I have been saying this entire time. Why? I can only assume is so you can feel better about yourself and further justify your irrational beliefs. Once you are actually ready to have a discussion and stop trying to pretend that you are right about everything you think, believe, or practice, you know where to find me. But if you just want to sit and argue…like I said before…our dialogue will be pointless.

        You can prove me wrong and actually learn from this comment by demonstrating a different attitude and behavior. Are you capable of that? Having a different perspective on our discussion? I’m not saying you have to think like a theist, rather stop thinking like an irrational atheist.

      • Hmmm, do we have an answer to my question: This story is similar to so many others e.g. the theist claims that their god answered their prayer positively. It was offered to impress an atheist with how “real” this god was and how it did things. Would you accept this story if it invoked Allah or the Wiccan Goddess or any other of a hundred thousand gods? Why or why not?

        Shucks, I guess we still don’t have one. It’s pretty amusing when KD claims I don’t answer his questions, I do and then we have him declaring that he is ignoring mine.

        So, here we are again. It’s so cute to watch you claim that I have a wrong “perspective” on evidence. That’s hilarious. We have you claiming that you have evidence that I have used logical fallacies. We have you claiming that you would not show me the evidence and I would be able to find it myself in my own posts if I were reading my own posts honestly. Let’s see what you have said. We’ll go from most recent into the past, showing when you have claimed that I have done something and have refused to actually show me what I’ve supposedly done.

        “Well, Vel, if you committed them what is the reason I must show them to you? Because you believe them not to exist? Because I made the claim? Again, the reality is that if you have committed any number of logical fallacies in our conversation it is already evident in and of themselves. It requires no one to “show it” to you as if you are logical and understand logical fallacies than you are able to identify it yourself. If you are not however, logical or do not understand logical fallacies then someone would have to “show you.” You seemed to believe that you were logical and understood when a logical fallacy was being committed so I guess I assumed you were intelligent enough that I need not show it to you.”

        “That I must show you this evidence for there to be in fact be evidence…you realized that one of the reasons I have not cut and pasted evidence of your logical fallacies is because it is the same response I gave you when you demanded evidence of proof that God exists. My response to both these questions is the same…the evidence is right in front of you…”

        “You still seem to believe that you have not made any logical fallacies even though I’ve pointed out a number of them, mind you some are more questionable than others but that does not make them lies.” You have yet to point out any actual logical fallacies. I’ve asked for you to demonstrate what you think are logical fallacies and how but still, nothing.

        “No either you are lying about going back and reviewing the entire conversation or you are ignoring the facts. Simply stating that I must show you where you made logical fallacies is not proof that you did not commit them. Like I said, the evidence speaks for itself.”Ah, “the evidence speaks for itself”, the usual claim of someone who can’t actually show the evidence. We have such lovely vague claims.

        “I find you some what intelligent. But the fact that you find no logical fallacies in your post or comments looks poorly on your intelligence. Or in the least your critical reasoning. I’m sure you believe yourself to be more intelligent than me, and perhaps you are. But you sure don’t act like it.” Personal insults, gotta love ‘em!

        “What evidence are you looking for? For me to prove the existence of God? Or to prove that your post and comments have committed logical fallacies? I may not be familiar with the names of what fallacy is being used but I am very aware of a fallacy when I see one.”

        ““I also took your advice and started looking at lists of logical fallacies and see a great many of them on both sides…Again, I don’t want to take the time to point them out and believe you intelligent enough to find them without me having to “show you.”” And more claims of how you just can’t take the time. But golly you can find the time to write all sorts of posts. Seems that you’re lying about your concern about “time”.

        “You seem to want to focus on any topic that doesn’t actually address issues with your post where you attempt to prove “all religion” is wrong, which the argument in your post has failed on many levels.”

        Such fun! You have yet to show me that I do not understand logical fallacies as you have falsely claims. You have yet to show me these supposed logical fallacies I’ve used. You’ve been unable to show that my argument has failed on “many levels” yet one more vague claims with nothing to support it.

        And of course, you are unable to show that my analogy fails since I have been able to quote you repeatedly on what you have said exactly. So your attempt at tell me, the officer, that you have evidence of something e.g. you not speeding or in this case my having used logical fallacies, and not being able to provide but trust you that exists it is a direct comparison. ““I would pay to see your use your “argument” with a police officer. Honest officer, there is evidence that I wasn’t running the speed limit. No, I can’ t show you it but you have no choice but to agree with me.” I have not failed to understand any of your points. What I have done is agree with you and your claims.

        You have not shown I am wrong at all, KD. You have not shown the existence of any instance where I have used logical fallacies, etc as you have claimed. All we have are your claims which are backed up by nothing. In your example, if someone is telling a lie, and no one corrects them, it is still a lie. That is true, but what you seem to ignore is that there has to be a truth in the first place that one can compare to. For instance, say you made the claim that you flew to the planet Jupiter on your own power, like Superman. Now, that is a lie because it is an established fact that it is not possible, just like 1+1=1 is impossible. You have yet to establish a fact, KD. You have yet to provide evidence. Someone must indeed show that it is impossible 1+1=1 and must show that it is impossible for a human to fly to Jupiter unaided in vacuum. If they do not, they have no premise to determine truth or not. Just because you *tell* me I’m wrong is worthless. I have no reason to accept what you say and plenty of reasons not to.

        You have made the claim, KD, and you still have the burden of proof if you want anyone to accept your claim as truth. You need to show the officer the evidence you have. That is not irrational at all, and will not magically become irrational just because you say it is. Though, you do seem to think things magically change in the world if you declare something.
        Brining up your punctuation and grammar errors is evidence that I know grammar and punctuation better than you do. You made errors and I could show them to you. And there we have it, claim and supported by evidence. I’ve already seen how that would have worked, KD. You’d insist that you didn’t make any errors because you have already done that. Now I don’t know if you’d demand evidence or not, since that would concretely show you wrong and you certainly don’t like that considering your response to my corrections. I have provided evidence to support my claims. You have not repeatedly. I don’t care if you don’t need evidence for claims made against you. I find it weird but doesn’t matter a damn to me. I will provide it anyway and I will demand it for myself since I don’t like people lying about me as you have.

        Ah, this has to be preserved for posterity. “Let’s review my claim: You made any number of logical fallacies in your post/comments. I then proceeded to explain that since you have such a grasp on when others make logical fallacies you should be able to easily identify when you yourself make them. As the fallacies you make are the same you claim others to make. You then requested me to show evidence of your logical fallacies, of which I declined because someone such as yourself who probably thinks they “know all of the logical fallacies” should surely be able to identify when they have made one. You then claim that you re-read and couldn’t find a single logical fallacy made in your post or comments. “

        This is perfect. Again, I have not made “any number of logical fallacies in my posts/comments”. That is a lie. You did indeed proceed to claim that I should be able to see them if I knew about logical fallacies. Now, since I do know a lot about logical fallacies, and did not see them, that then means that they are not there, per your own logic. You then have repeatedly called my intelligent in question to excuse that failure of your own claim, insisting that I now must not understand logical fallacies well and that I don’t understand logical fallacies “correctloy”, another claim that you cannot support. What a lovely house of cards, KD.

        “I will continue not to show you where you made the mistakes because I don’t have too.” Oh I can just see the pouty lips. Yep, I know you’ll not show me the supposed logical fallacies that I made. They don’t exist and your claim is false. You cannot show them to be evident and you are a TrueChristian caught in a lie. As I have said before, the evidence that I made any logical fallacies is just as evident as evidence for your god, another thing you cannot furnish. You’ve been a lovely example of how such thinking is part of the harm religion causes.

        You also have not shown that I have tried to present evidence for a event that is not being discussed. Since you evidently cannot, that is also a lie and your analogy fails since you cannot support your claim.

        My arguments have not been based on assumptions. Again, please do show me where I have made and assumption and not backed it up with evidence or that I have offered evidence for something different. But of course, you’ll whine that you “don’t have too[sic]”. You have made claims that are false, e.g. that you were not speeding *and* had evidence to back that up, and you want the officer to accept your word that you have evidence which they do not see in existence. You are telling the officer that the evidence is there if they were smart enough to see it. And ah, the mental amusement that gives is wonderful.

        A conversation is an argument is a discussion, KD: “oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas; an exchange similar to conversation”. You don’t like being held accountable for your claims and thus you want to pretend that a conversation doesn’t require that accountability. Sorry, they do require that. You have made many positive claims and you have failed at supporting most, if not all, of them. What you appear to want is a soapbox because you don’t want to be shown wrong or have to support your claims. You came to my blog claiming that I was wrong and thus you were right. You didn’t want anyone to call your claims into question. Too bad. And no, KD, it wasn’t only about “beliefs, practices and attitudes that are negative or positive”, nice trying to revise history again but alas, this is a written medium that is saved and shared. You have claimed that I was wrong. You claimed that atheists were religious and had to ignore the context of my post to do so. You have lied about me repeatedly in your attempts to claim yourself correct. So much for claim on how you would have preferred a conversation where someone isn’t trying to prove themselves right.

        Ah, and now you call me close-minded and irrational since I dare to disagree with you and show you where you are wrong. Amazing on how many people resort to that when they have no evidence. Just more vague claims from you, KD. You again lie when you claim that I “haven’t actually taken anytime to look at my [your] comments and consider what I have been saying this entire time.” That one is so cute since I can show exactly where I have answered your questions and have commented on your remarks. It would be impossible for me not to have looked at your posts and done this. But we do see that little word “actually” in your claim which shows that you want to only consider comments that agree with you to be “actually” looking at your claims. Of course, we do get more assumptions from you and you so helpfully point them out by saying that they are indeed assumptions. They are assumptions based on a false claim, that I have not looked at your posts and considered what you’ve been saying.

        We have been having an “actual discussion”, KD, though you are evidently unhappy that I do not accept what you say without considering it thoroughly and contesting it if I find it to be wrong. So, again, you have lied about me. I have not and never have claimed that I am right about everything I think, another lie of yours. I do know where to find you and many many more TrueChristians just like you. And again, yep, you said our dialogue (hmmm, so we had a dialogue now?) was pointless quite a few comments of yours ago. You said that and ran away from answering my questions. You came back and offered a claim of a miracle about your wedding ring to impress me and failed. So, leaving again so soon, KD? Tsk.

        No, KD, I have no different attitude and behavior since the ones you’ve claimed I’ve had are even more lies from you. I have my own which can be seen in my posts e.g. I don’t put up with nonsense and require evidence. Your lies and inability to support your claims give me no reason to treat you any differently. I have the same perspective I have always had and that I have supported with evidence. I am a very rational atheist who enjoys seeing a TrueChristian lie about things intentionally and repeatedly. Agreeing with your claims does not make one rational at all, KD, you only want to pretend it does because you must or your belief system and claims are shown to be wrong. To agree with claims with no evidence does not make one rational. I know you don’t do this yourself in most circumstances. To tell me I *must* is silly.

        Oh and again still looking for an answer: This story is similar to so many others e.g. the theist claims that their god answered their prayer positively. It was offered to impress an atheist with how “real” this god was and how it did things. Would you accept this story if it invoked Allah or the Wiccan Goddess or any other of a hundred thousand gods? Why or why not?

      • I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise to me that you still don’t get it. And you apparently missed where I did answer your question…do you need to review our conversation yet again?

        Oh and look at the cutting and pasting job again. Like what you have cut and pasted actually supports your argument…my 2nd grade teacher Mrs. Ludwig would be so disappointed in your cutting and pasting ability. Do feel free to continue to ignore reality and keep making ludicrous claims/arguments against my not providing evidence equates to evidence being non-existent?

        Let’s look at another argument with a police officer that would be a sight to see. Officer pulls you over and says, “Ma’am, do you know why I pulled you over?” You, “No officer, I do not.” Officer, “You were speeding back there, I’m going to have to write you a ticket.” You, “Officer, I’m sorry but you must show me evidence that I was in fact speeding, as I was paying close attention and I did not speed back there.” Officer, “Well, ma’am, I understand you believe you weren’t speeding back there. But I’m still going to have to write you a ticket.” You, “Officer, you simply must show me the evidence that I was speeding otherwise I will not pay the ticket as without evidence you are simply lying that I was speeding.” Officer, “Ma’am, I’m going to need you to calm down.” You, “No officer, I will not calm down, you are lying and by writing this ticket you are falsely accusing me of something I have not done. I was not speeding unless you show me the evidence.” Officer, “Ma’am, here is your ticket, you have 14 days to pay the fine.”

        Oh, that would be a sight to see. Demanding a police officer to show the evidence that you were speeding otherwise he’s a liar and falsely accusing you of doing something you have not done…classic! Maybe you should try this argument the next time you get pulled over for speeding, you seem to think it works when someone claims you’ve committed logical fallacies.

        Have you even tried my revised 1 in 25 test for you and your husband? Didn’t get the results you were hoping for?

        And yes Vel, you are irrational. Not because you don’t agree with me but because you simply are. You were born that way, you can’t help it. It’s why in your post you have to state that you are not like a Vulcan, a purely logical being devoid of emotions. Why do you think that is, that human beings are not entirely logical?

        You don’t seem to get that people today try and use logic to pretend that they have overcome irrational beliefs, practices, or attitudes. It’s simply not so. It’s impossible. Our emotions dictate our behavior in much the same way our logic does. Our experiences, our past, our present, our thoughts on the future, all play a role in what we believe. One can try and be more logical, but that doesn’t eliminate emotion or irrationality.

        So while you believe there is no evidence or hold on to there is no gods based on your logic. Your belief is not based solely on logic. Your attitudes and practices are not based solely on logic either. I know you like to believe they are, but they aren’t. Your beliefs, practices, and attitudes are subjective to your worldview. Everything you experience filters through it. You can use logic to rationalize or come up with reason’s why you believe, say, or do something; but that doesn’t make what you believe say or do right. Simply because you’ve logically justified something doesn’t make it right.

        You want to believe that you are justified to discriminate against all religions. But you turn around and condemn others if they discriminate against you or you perceive them to discriminate against you based on the fact that you are a woman. Or if they discriminate against someone who is homosexual.

        Why are you justified to discriminate against others but they are not justified in their discrimination? Either discrimination is justifiable or it is unjustifiable. Either way, Vel, you will still be a hypocrite.

        You continue to do a brilliant job of proving my points! Some how you still haven’t noticed that your arguments are no different than the ones you criticize me for making. You really must review our conversation a little closer.

      • Another long comment by KD about a “pointless” discussion demonstrates that it is evidently not pointless at all to him despite his words to the contrary.

        Please do show me where I missed the answer to my question. I’ve reviewed the conversation again and again, but I could have missed it in your large posts. I ask you to show your answer to me.

        You have not shown that what I have cut and pasted does not support my argument. I do enjoy the “Like what you have cut and pasted actually supports your argument”. Such a lovely vague claim that shows you haven’t anything else. In that you haven’t shown any evidence to support your claim, there is no reason to believe it. My cut and pastes of your very own comments supports my claim that you make claims about me and refuse to support them with evidence. And aw shucks, you’re flattering me again with your attempts to mimic me. I am not ignoring reality at all. I use reality, my cut and pasted quotes of yours, to support my position. I do not claim that someone has said something and then refuse to show what I think they have said like you. Until you can show the evidence, there is no reason to believe that there is any at all.

        It’s really been a joy to see you avoid supporting yourself and making up excuse after excuse on why you don’t have to. I have not equated not providing evidence to there being no evidence. I have said that the fact that you refuse to provide any evidence appears to be evidence that there is none at all. I know that you can find quotes of mine when you want to and will show me them. That you will not in this case indicates that there is some problem with showing them to me in this instance. In that I cannot find these logical fallacies that you claim I have made, it appears that the most likely reason is that they do not exist at all. One cannot find what does not exist.

        Most people know when they are speeding, KD. However, asking the officer for evidence is no problem at all. “Officer, I disagree with you. I will challenge this ticket.” That’s why you can challenge speeding tickets in court since the officer is not judge jury and executioner. The police officer must provide evidence at the hearing. If he cannot provide any, then the ticket is dismissed. If he can show evidence, the judge will likely believe him and not me since I cannot rebut the evidence if I have none of my own. So your analogy fails again since it does not express a situation based on how the law works. It’s so cute that you have to claim that I somehow am not calm in your fantasy. I love those little slips of yours.

        KD, let me ask you: would you believe me if I said we had no problems with your 1 in 25 test? I will guess that this would cause you to claim one of two things: that we did not do the test or that your god helped us. You need one answer or the other to avoid coming to the conclusion that your ring miracle was nothing more than human nature and/or coincidence.
        You have yet to show me irrational. You want to equate irrational with not agreeing with KD. It’s cute to see you claim that I was “born that way”. More wishful thinking, KD. One can be rational and not a Vulcan. You seem to want to pretend that humans can’t be rational and have emotions and feelings. You can have both with no problem, KD. Having feelings and emotions does not make irrational as you try to claim falsely.

        I have not pretended anything, KD. And again, you make claims you offer no evidence for. Tell me how you know that “people today try to use logic to pretend that they have overcome irrational beliefs, practices or attitudes.” People today do overcome irrational BPAs with being based on facts and logical reasoning. We now know that diseases aren’t caused by demons but by viruses, bacteria, genetic errors, etc. We know that the earth revolves around the sun. We know that stars aren’t just points of light. We know that there are no monsters under the bed. All of this and more is based on overcoming mythical nonsense with facts and logical thinking.

        Our emotions do influence us but they can be controlled by us. I can get angry enough to harm someone but I don’t have to act on it. Yes, our experiences and our thoughts about the future do influence us. And we can compare those to facts. Reality trumps emotion and feelings every time. Take for instance when you were sure that I would not respond to a post of yours. You wanted to believe I would not but you were ignoring the fact that I have responded to all of your nonsense. You decided to go with your emotions rather than reality and you were shown wrong again.

        My beliefs are based on facts, logic and reason, KD. My attitudes and practices are based on facts, logic and reason too. You have yet to show that they are not. I know that emotions can try to get in the way and I don’t let them. I still experience them but I know that they can skew perception. That comes from a long time working to be very self-aware. My world view is also based on facts, logic and reason. If you can’t do this, that’s fine. Saying that everyone has to be exactly like you is false. It is not rationalizing if one has facts to support a belief, practice or attitude. Since I do have those facts, I have no problem in accepting that what I believe and say is right. If I express an opinion that I do not have evidence for, then I do say so.

        The facts are that religion causes harm and that religion is not needed to be a decent human being. Thus, religion not worth supporting. Religion has nothing to support its claims. There is no evidence for your god or the events claimed in the bible. There are facts that show that other events happened which preclude your religious nonsense. One doesn’t even need logic, just facts to show that theistic nonsense is not true.

        Again, KD, I have no problem condemning you and others if your claims are false and/or harmful. I have the evidence to support my claims. If I didn’t have the evidence, I’d be lying. If you want to claim that I’m false or harmful, then show the evidence, KD. If you can’t, then you are lying. Since you mention homosexuality, please do show that it is harmful. If you can’t, then well, you’d be lying again. Condemnation with evidence is not a bad thing, KD. Your attempts to try to convince me that I can’t dare tell you that you are wrong because I might be wrong is just great.

        Nope, KD, I’m not a hypocrite. You see, a hypocrite is one who acts differently than they claim they do. I have no problem with condemning people if I have evidence for my claims and I have no problem with people condemning me if they have evidence supporting their claims.

        No, I’ve not proven your points, KD. But we do get to see you claim that you’ve won the argument. You said that you never do that and how bad it is. I wonder, where in this post is a description of someone who says one thing and does another?

      • Your hysterical Vel. I haven’t claimed that I’ve “won an argument” I’ve claimed I’d rather have a rational conversation with a “real atheist.” It’s you who look at this as an argument to win. You miss the obvious.

        You apparently haven’t reviewed our entire conversation. Maybe you’ve just said you don’t have time to review all of my long comments to scour through to find where I answered your question…but if you admit to not actually reviewing our conversation in entirety you would begin sounding like me not wanting to review our conversation and show you where you made logical fallacies. What reason have I to “show you.” I know that I’ve responded to your question on more than one occasion even. I know without a doubt that there is evidence of my response. You bring up “for the sake of proving one’s claims.” You’re still trying to win the argument huh? That if I don’t provide the evidence than there is reason to believe that evidence doesn’t exist? That’s no different than you stating evidence does not exist unless it is shown.

        Yes, my comments are vague. Ever wonder the purpose of that? You know I can show you evidence if requested. You would rather believe my claims are baseless than actually investigate them for yourself. What does that say about you?

        As for the 1 in 25, why would I have to equate that to you lying or “my god” helping you. It was a simple example of probability. The fact that you are insistent that I must “re-write” your claims to fit my worldview is quite an assumption. Your indirect comment where you state “If you and your husband had no trouble…” would be an indication that you did not do the test. Again, another hypothetical question. Not one based on actual evidence but one to try and get an expected result. That result being what you are claiming. The claim being how you perceive I would respond, which with a hypothetical question you can’t actually get a true response. You will simply have to believe what you assume which may not be the truth. You’ve also neglected that I’ve stated, the probability of choosing a 1 out of 25 numbers has a greater probability than my ring story. You still haven’t answered the question of whether or not you did the 1 in 25 test.

        Let me bring another piece of evidence to the table regarding the suspicious claim of your hypothetical question regarding the 1 in 25 test. Had you and your husband done the test and not had trouble with it, you would have boasted about it. You would have loved to rub it in my face that my test failed. This also leads me to believe that you have not done the test. Am I wrong?

        I never stated homosexuality to cause harm. I can only assume you hope to get me to respond in the manner you feel any Christian would respond. Again, another assumption based on prejudice. My statement if you review it again is that discrimination is discrimination. If discrimination is wrong than anyone who discriminates based on gender, sexual orientation, or religion is wrong. Or if one is able to be justified in discriminating against another than that means others are justified when they are being discriminatory. The reason you are a hypocrite either way is that either you believe discrimination to be unjustified and yet you discriminate. Or you believe you are justified in discriminating against other but others are not.

        Much like you and logical fallacies. You believe others have committed logical fallacies and you have not. You still don’t get it. You’ve committed the same logical fallacies that you accuse others of committing. Yet, because it is your perception on your logic that you do not see them as fallacies. You are quick to point out others mistakes but very slow to catch your own. So much so, that you think you’ve created an actual defense against my claims. IF you have committed logical fallacies my claims are right and supported by evidence. IF you have not committed logical fallacies your claims are right and supported by evidence. END of case.

        But yet again, another long comment. Hmm…I wonder how many long comments you’ve made during our conversation. My point of you do exactly what you criticize others for is just one of the points you continue to support.

        You are free to carry on and believe in your non-sense if you like. Or like, I’ve stated time and time again, you could actually learn something.

      • That’s great, KD. So now, I’m not a “real atheist”. Hmmm, let me guess, a “real atheist” just sits back and doesn’t show your claims as wrong.

        I have reviewed our entire conversation, KD. One more lie you have told. The only reason you say this repeatedly is that I dare not to agree with you. No, KD, I have not said that I don’t have time. That is another lie from you. I have quoted you repeatedly from the past conversation so it’s rather hard for me to have done that without reviewing the conversation. Again reality goes against your false claims.

        The reason that one would show another the evidence for their claims is to be believed. I am perfectly happy that you refuse to do so. It shows that you evidently do not have the evidence you have claimed.

        Again, you should look at the rat boat link to show how burden of proof works. And no, KD, there is no reason to believe that evidence exists. The only one claiming it does is you. Just like a conspiracy theorist who wants to claim that they have evidence of aliens running the gov’t and cannot provide it. You have shown yourself to be untrustworthy.

        I know the purpose of your vague comments, KD. You think you can’t be pinned down with them. I do not know at all that you can show me the evidence if requested. You know how I know this? Because I have requested the evidence and you refuse every time. I have investigated your claims and found them false. This says that I am an honest person who will do her due diligence when requested to by another person.

        You have claimed that since it would supposedly be such a improbably chance (This is less than a 0.015% chance.) for anyone to pick the same thing, ring or number, it was evidence of your god (“How do I know the difference between my will and god’s will?”) I have no trouble in saying that is very likely that you would try to rewrite my claims to fit your world view. You already have when creating the various strawmen in your posts. My husband and I did your test, the one with the numbers being no different than the one with 1 in 25, so yes, we did a test to determine if your claims were true. They turned out to be false and again we have evidence of it. We did the 1 in 25 test too. We went to amazon.com and searched “science fiction” under the book category. We took the first three pages to get around 60 books. My husband chose one and I chose one. And the result? Wwe both picked “The Backworlds”. So again, no god needed at all. Just some familiarity with each other. And again, coincidence could be at play, because an improbable event doesn’t need a god either. I didn’t “rub it in your face” because I bowed to my nastier side and wanted to see you accuse me of not doing it. I got my wish, didn’t I?

        You stated this about homosexuality: ““You want to believe that you are justified to discriminate against all religions. But you turn around and condemn others if they discriminate against you or you perceive them to discriminate against you based on the fact that you are a woman. Or if they discriminate against someone who is homosexual.”

        Look at the context, KD. You said this in the context of speaking out against something doing harm. To me, it seems that you are comparing homosexuality to what I know about religions. If you did not mean this, then I apologize. In that you are a Christian, it is a valid assumption that you find homosexuality harmful. In that you appear to think that homosexuality is a choice, I find that my guess that you find homosexuality harmful to be a valid one. I will wait until you reply about when you chose to be a heterosexual before I render my conclusion.

        Discrimination with valid evidence is not discrimination without valid evidence. They are vastly different. To claim they are the same means that you have no more problem with slavery than no slavery. I hope that this is not the case. I am justified in discrimination if I have the evidence that says that discrimination is valid e.g. saying Nazis are not allowed in my house because their beliefs are abhorrent to civilized society. If I discriminate with no evidence of something being wrong, then I am wrong. I can show that religion/faith has caused harm again and again and again, therefore I have a reason to discriminate, to make a choice for or against, it.

        Still baseless accusations of me using logical fallacies. Please do show them, KD. But I see that again you refuse to show them. I know that you have committed logical fallacies and I have shown them in detail. Your attempt to falsely claim that I have not is yet one more intentional lie from a Christian. I know tht I have not committed any of these logical fallacies but am willing to consider any evidence you have. You are the one who will not provide it. And you wonder why you are not believed.

        You have not shown that my perception of logic is flawed, KD. Again, you indulge in bearing false witness against me. You are a model of a TrueChristian indeed.

        Indeed, *if* your claims about me are true, then one would find logical fallacies in my postings. In that there has been none found, your claims are false. And of course, “END of case”.

        Why yes, you’ve made another long comment, KD. You consistently do so and I don’t’ mind at all. But it does show that your claim “Again, I don’t want to take the time to point them out and believe you intelligent enough to find them without me having to “show you.” Or “I don’t have time to go through and show you everytime you make a strawman, argument from silence, or argument from ignorance””

        Andn now I see yet another huge post already today. I have never said I didn’t like long post or that I didn’t make them myself. Indeed, if you look over my blog, you’ll see me making fun of myself for the monster posts I make. One more attempt to lie about me, KD. You really are racking them up. And finally one more attempt to insult me by insinuating I’m too stupid to learn something. Good one, KD!

      • Although I do have to admit that I love that your question, while it sounds clever, is being asked in the hypothetical. Do you have examples where you’ve spoken with followers of Allah, the Wiccan Goddess, or any other hundreds of thousands of gods to support your question? Where those theists have made similar claims? Otherwise, your question isn’t about other god claims, but rather asking if a theist can look at an event through the eyes of an atheist.

        Tell me Vel, why should a theist have to change their worldview perspective when you are so unwilling to change yours?

        Unlike you may believe, I am highly capable of viewing things objectively. Of using a different perspective than my theist worldview. Yes, you are closed-minded because you refuse to view the world from any perspective other than the one you currently hold on to.

        Yes, your question assumes that a Christian will respond with the idea of a follower of Allah, WG, etc. making a similar god claim would view the question as such a preposterous notion that they will respond with, “I would never accept such a claim.” Have you reviewed my original response to your question?

        There is a difference between a conversation and an argument. A conversation is an exchange of thoughts and ideas. An argument is an exchange where one or both parties are trying to “win the argument.” I’m not here to argue. You can disagree with the things I say, but you don’t have to argue.

        You don’t seem to realize my arguments and posts were intentional for you to see how you sound. For you to view how you respond to me and maybe see that is exactly how you sound. That your comments and posts are no different than mine in their make up. That’s why you haven’t gotten the irony of my comments/posts. You’ve failed to look at the big picture of our conversation, failed to look at our conversation objectively. You’ve held on to your subjective views and been trying to win an argument that I never came for in the first place.

        You likely still won’t see it. It’s unfortunate because it’s only up to you, and you don’t seem capable of having a different perspective than the one your holding on too. You don’t even realize that your pursuit for truth, for understanding, that even though you believe you’ve come to a logical and evidential conclusion regarding reality, that you could still be wrong. That while you want to claim you are right, you may not be. Yes, you hold tightly to your worldview for any number of reasons. But you might be holding tightly to air?

        You never answered my question of when you became an atheist? Yes, you lost faith in Christianity before you were married, then researched other religions, but when did you finally decide no gods existed: before or after you were married?

      • No, my question is not being asked in the hypothetical, KD. I’ve spoken to Muslims, Wiccans, etc, not every type of theist but many of them. It’s so cute that you ask me for evidence now. Hmmm, should I say “why, KD, it’s right there. It’s only because you aren’t intelligent that you can’t find the answer.” No, I wouldn’t say that at all. I would say that I have done it and show you if I could. I can’t show you the discussions I have had. In this case, it is my relating events that have not been recorded, unlike your claims about my writing which have.

        Now, with your claim, you seem to be indicating that no Muslims, Wiccans, would support my question : would you accept a story about how a god performed a miracle as evidence for that god? I’ve gotten a lot of answers. It’s another god, it’s a demon/jinn, there was no miracle only coincidence since only *my* god answers prayers, etc.

        You ask why a theist should have to change their “worldview perspective” when I’m unwilling to change mine. I don’t care if you don’t change your views, KD, you can keep them as long as they don’t harm me. But if someone has views and acts on them *and* they do harm, they should be asked to consider why they are acting with no evidence for their myths and nonsense at all, and shown the evidence. Let me ask you a similar question: why do you and other theists try so hard to convert people? Why should anyone have to change their perspective because you are unwilling to do so ? I’m guessing because you think you are right. If not, then why?

        Unfortunately, you have not shown yourself to be able to view things objectively. If that where the case, I would not think it would be so offensive to hear that your purported miracle is a non-magical occurrence, perhaps improbable but that’s it. You use this to try to show me that your god exists and I think you use it to convince yourself of that too. You have yet to show me close-minded, KD. Repeating something will not make it true. I can view the world from the perspective of a Christian. I was one and can remember exactly what that was like. I just know that that view is wrong based on piles of evidence.

        My question does not assume that a Christian will respond with the idea that a Muslim, Wiccan, etc making a similar claim to the Christian would be unacceptable and unbelievable. It asks a question, nothing more and nothing less. You said that you believe that other gods exist. You of course differ in that from other Christians. Who should be believed then, KD? You and the parts of the bible that says that there are other gods? CARM who says that there are noother gods and those parts of the bible that support them? This just goes to show that Christians do not agree on very basic tenets of their religion and that you each consider the other wrong.

        KD, again, you are the one who came here saying that you were right and I was wrong about what I said about religion being harmful. You tried to prove yourself right by citing your miracle story and making up nonsense about my using logical fallacies. You may wish to convince yourself that you are not doing this, but again, this is a recording medium. You have participated in this discussion/argument/dialogue, whatever. If you didn’t like it, why are you still here? I mean, really, “Oh don’t, please I musn’t” as you are wholeheartedly writing posts of hundreds of words in this supposedly “pointless” discussion.

        No, KD, I don’t buy that you were ever so clever to make me “see how you[me] sound”. That’s just more attempts to retcon this interaction. Pretend that if you have to but it doesn’t reflect reality. Andn now, you have to claim that our posts are just alike in “their make up”. Again, pretend if you must. Your post are not ironic at all. They are what I have seen again and again from TrueChristians over decades. Try to call them “ironic” is rather like a bully trying to say “I was only joking.” Unsurprisingly, you don’t want to take responsibility for your actions.

        Again, I can see things in many different perspectives. You have yet to show I cannot. That does not mean that I will accept those different perspectives as true or that I will not attack your nonsense. I know I could be wrong. And you again make another lie that I somehow think I am completely right all of the time. That old straw man that you have to resurrect to salve your pride. Until you can show me that I am “holding tightly to air”, I have no reason to not think that I am holding onto reality. That’s what you need to do, KD, show evidence, and again I’m sure you’ll refuse.

        I did answer when I became an atheist, KD. But I’ll cut and paste it for your convenience. “I do love the questions you ask but you can’t answer them. what does it matter when I became an atheist, KD? I lost my faith in Christianity before getting married. I researched and tried other religions for some years. And finally ended up an atheist since there is no evidence for any supernatural beings/forces/events.”

        It was a gradual process, KD. I’ll answer your question “but when did you finally decide no gods existed: before or after you were married?” but I expect you to tell me why this matters. I became an atheist after I was married, about 10 years into the marriage. Again, so what? You want to blame my husband?

      • You have a great many assumptions about me Vel. you have taken a great number of my comments out of context to fit your worldview and beliefs. You still don’t see it.

        You don’t see the holes in your posts or comments. The holes in your logical conclusions. Maybe I will take the time to show them to you after all.

        But before I do, have you considered that you are absolutely wrong? About your post, comments, beliefs against religions, i.e., any number of things?

        I want you to really consider it before you respond. Consider that you are wrong and I am right. I know this is a stretch because you do not believe I have evidence to prove you wrong. Think back to my first comment. It wasn’t about religion, it wasn’t about gods, it was about positive and negative values. I wasn’t attacking you being an atheist, or you not believing in gods. It was about the values you demonstrate which stems from your beliefs, practices, and attitudes.

        So again, if you review our conversation and still do not see the point I’ve been trying to make from the beginning. I will show you the evidence you’ve built against yourself.

      • I have made observations of you, KD. Not assumptions. I have shown what you have claimed and have said. Again, unless you want to claim that none of your posts have meant what they appear to considering the rules of grammar and definitions, then they are gibberish. It appears that you only want to claim that I misunderstand your claims to avoid taking responsibility for them.

        I have asked you repeatedly to show where I have taken anything out of context. And you have yet to support your claims. They are nothing but vague accusations with nothing to back them up.

        You claim that there are holes in my posts and comments but you have not shown them. Again, you fail to provide evidence. The burden of evidence is yours, KD. You might find this of interest, a nice exercise on how burdens of proof are determined: http://the-toast.net/2014/01/24/prove-the-ratboat-does-not-exist/

        I’m here waiting for you to show these holes. I’ve been asking for months. But I’m guessing you won’t “take the time to show them to you[me] after all.”
        KD, I have considered I’m absolutely wrong. You have tried your best to show me I am wrong. And you have failed. KD, you’ve done a great job in showing me how correct I am in many areas. I do have what I expect from a TrueChristian, and you have hit most of those characteristics. You make false claims, you refuse to support your claims, you use personal insults, you are ill educated in many topics, etc. There is nothing about your posts or about reality in general that has shown me that I am wrong about most things. I have been wrong about many things, for instance I really suck at figuring out song lyrics because I can’t hear well. I have been wrong when thinking that just because someone is older than mean that means that they are smarter. I’ve been wrong when I look at optical illusions. Nothing I’ve said regarding religion, faith or you has been demonstrated wrong.

        You’ve asked me this question before, KD, in different ways. And you still seem deluded enough to think I’ll change my mind. Again, are you praying I will and hope that all of the sudden I’ll agree with you? Again, you claim I haven’t considered things enough and believe that if I just “really consider” things again, I’ll agree with you. I won’t, KD, because your claims fail. You have yet to show me any evidence so I don’t believe you have *any*.
        Your first comment was about religion: “So an atheist who is taught negative values is just as likely as a theist who is taught negative values to do harm in the world? And an atheist or theist who is taught positive values will most likely do good in the world?
        I hope you agree. So are you claiming that all Religions are wrong or that humanity is prone to being taught negative or positive values? Is your claim that belief in God/s can only result in a negative impact in the world?
        Are you condemning one worldview (belief in god) and promoting your worldview (belief that no gods exist)? How exactly is that different from what anyone else does? How can anyone know that your claims are true? How do you know that what you claim is the correct answer?
        Does the Bible teach “religion” or does humanity use the Bible to make their own “Religions?”
        I’ll give my penny on that last question. I do not believe the Bible to teach religion but a way of life with a creator God who loves and desires humanity to choose him as opposed to doing it their own way. …”

        Again, your claim is false, KD. You first post *was* about religion. You wanted to claim that atheism was a religion. You wanted to claim that it was religion that was wrong and not your faith, practices, beliefs and attitudes. You were indeed attacking me because you said I was wrong, right in that quotation of yours I used.

        The point you have been trying to make is that somehow atheism is a religion. Again, the only reason I think that you did this is that you find all religions bad and want to tar atheism with the same brush. You want to claim that you don’t want to have a religion because it’s bad, though you ignore that you do have a religion exactly as described by the term, a set of beliefs, practice and attitudes based on the belief in a supernatural being/force. You have tried to claim that atheism is wrong but you cannot provide evidence for your god or any other god. You have tried to claim to claim that I have made errors and of course have not yet supported that claim.

        Show me this “evidence” I have supposedly built against myself. I’ll always be here to answer your comments.

      • Sorry, this comment again got longer than originally planned.

        No Vel, the point I was trying to make is that atheists are no different in their beliefs practices or attitudes (negative or positive values) than theists outside the belief in gods. You do need to do a better job of reading between the lines.

        Whether one calls that religion or worldview or whatever.

        One might believe something because “god says so” another might believe something because “logic says so.” Do you not understand that logic can cause as much harm to humanity as belief in a god?

        You seem to want to blame religion (i.e. belief in gods) for the worlds problems. Even if there is no god or no belief in god, the world will still have the same problems. Why? Because people believe wrong things. Logic is fallible. Logic can cause harm. An atheists beliefs can be just as dangerous as a theists beliefs. What is to blame is humanity and humanity alone. Atheists, theists, belief in gods, logic, emotions, etc.

        Yes, logic and our brains can override our base urges but our base urges can also override our logic. It’s a two way street Vel.

        If you want to stand up for what you believe and show why seeking medical treatment is move valuable than not seeking medical treatment go right ahead. I can demonstrate your claim that science doesn’t offer what it can’t do claim invalid. You won’t agree with me but that doesn’t mean you are right.

        Now where did I try and claim atheism “wrong.” You are now becoming delusional of my claims. I’m not attacking your beliefs that no gods exist, but your beliefs that lead you to negative or harmful actions. That’s what your post was all about. But you are so right in your own mind about what you do that you continually fail to see this and are unable to change. Irregardless of any I say. Why? Because you believe you are flipping a one sided coin.

        I don’t view religion negatively, you do. You seem to want to run away from it because you believe it has such a foul odor. If you haven’t noticed, I’m not running because you say religion is so bad.

        If anything, I have failed in showing you an alternate perspective of what you already believe. I personally, believe that you should give a second thought to the reasons you “speak out” and to our conversation. I know, bringing this up again without showing you evidence to believe me…I’m not trying to convert you to believe in “my god.” I’ve been trying to show you that the reasons you’ve given for why you speak out against religion and the beliefs and attitudes you have against theists aren’t good enough. You really must try harder next time.

        Simply because an argument is effective or sounds reasonable does not make it logically sound.

      • KD, you claimed that atheists and *some* theists were both wrong because we were religious. We were wrong since we do not do as KD does. My original post was how religion caused harm. In this I meant religion as the belief, practices and attitudes dependent on the belief in some supernatural god/force. You did try to claim that atheists weren’t any better than those who practice a religion and you don’t want to imagine yourself as being religious. And no, I do not need to a “better job of reading between the lines”. It’s hilarious that now it is me who needs to “do a better job of reading between the lines”. That is just more of you trying to avoid responsibility for what you directly said.

        You claimed your worldview was different and better than “religion”. You have claimed that you know when someone is misusing the bible, which means you think you know what the bible “really” means to render judgment like that.

        One might try to say “logic says” so and cause harm but it does not mean that logic really does say so. I can say pink is green and that doesn’t make it true and that means premises determine where logic goes. However, one can indeed say that “god says so” and point to chapter and verse where he does. Or claim that one’s interpretation is what this god “really meant”. Logic is not so twistable. But if you do think so, could you give me an example of what you mean? Now, here I am expecting you to say “I don’t have an example, but if there is an example that means I’m right.” Which is what you’ve been doing with the hilarity over my supposed logical fallacies.

        Again you lie, KD. It’s such a shame. I have never said that religion is responsible for the world’s problems. I do not believe that gods exist so I don’t blame them for anything. It is believers acting under ridiculous notions. I have said that religion is responsible for many of the world’s problems. I have said that we don’t need religion any more. The world will have many of the same problems but it will not have the problems caused by religion/faith saying that one set of people deserve a piece of land more than another, that god will heal people when it never has, that one set of believers should be annihilated by another. Likely, we’ll find other reasons to kill each other, but not under the delusion that some magical being approves of it and wants us to do it.

        And let me repeat, atheists don’t believe in gods. I accept logic when the premises are sound. I know we have emotions. Our basic urges can override our logic but less likely to do so than religion where we can convince our selves that some god agrees with us. It is humanity and humanity alone that is responsible for gods and what we do. There is no evidence otherwise. All you are doing, KD, is trying to absolve your god of doing anything wrong, things we see repeatedly in the bible which is supposedly some “truth”. You want to pretend that you can have a god and Jesus and ignore all of the ignorant primitive parts, because KD thinks those parts are just silly.

        I have already shown why seeking medical treatment is more valuable than a delusion that some god will heal a person, KD. It is faith/religion that causes such horrible acts. Nothing else.

        Please do show that science doesn’t offer what it can’t do. I’m waiting. If your claims don’t have anything to support them, then the probability that I’m right with evidence on my side is much higher than the probability you are.

        You are such a liar. You have claimed atheism wrong. I mean, really KD, did you forget about this so soon? http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/the-atheists-creed/ or this gem “Sometimes I wonder if atheists even know what they themselves believe? But that’s beside the point.” Or how about this “I will admit that I am critical of atheism (humanism, naturalism, secularism, etc.) on the grounds that I am critical of ALL religions. What I think many atheists or skeptics don’t understand about me is that it’s not about whether they choose to believe in God or not, it’s that they criticize religions other than their own. Many don’t even realize that they are in fact religious. Like I said, it’s a man-made concept. They’ve decided to create a cheap knock-off version of following Jesus and tell others its the cure to religion. The truth is, they don’t act differently than the same religions they attack. What they do is create distinctions between men and women of different faiths and beliefs. Thinking that in some twisted way that the religion they follow is better in some way than other religions.”

        So again, KD, you seem to be playing the “but I didn’t say that exactly” game. You said atheists don’t evne know what we ourselves believe. You said that everyone who didn’t follow what you follow is offering a “cheap knock-off version” of your beliefs. Yes, KD, you’ve said others are wrong.

        I have asked me what is negative or harmful in telling you and other theists that they are wrong and showing exactly how that occurs. Still waiting. And again, if you think harm is showing someone reality, then that is your own problem. I will not change, and have no need to change, if your claims are not based in reality and are demonstrably false as they have been.

        You do view religion negatively. Remember this is a recording medium. “What happens in most cases when people don’t like one religion is that they try another one or create their own. I hate it. I hate that I am prone to religion. Like I said, the answer to religion is Jesus. If you say that “I am Presbyterian” or “I go to this or that church,” you might be a follower of Christ but you are also following a religion. The same goes if you don’t go to church or follow Jesus, you might say “I am Muslim” or “I am a naturalist” but those again are religions. You see, religion is a man-made construct it was never part of God’s plan for humanity.” See the other quote above too. All here: http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/who-do-you-follow/
        I’m expecting you to say I need to “read between the lines” or that I am not intepreting you correctly again.

        You’ve failed in showing me evidence, KD. I already can look at things with different perspectives. I am sure you think I should give a “second thought” to why I speak out against such nonsense as your religion/faith spreads. Anything to keep someone from pointing out how religion/faith fails. You have tried to convert me to believe in your god. That’s one of the two reasons you told your story about your ring was for, to show me how wonderful this god was in making a miracle occur for you and how I should believe in it and why other Christians should rejoice in it. That’s what all stories like that are for.

        You may not think the evidence I’ve given for religion being harmful are not good enough. Well, KD, I have evidence that religion/faith is harmful. You have yet to provide evidence for your claims about me and about your god. I don’t need logic to help me when facts are involved. And you have yet to show that my argument isn’t logically sound. You haven’t even shown me where I’ve used logical fallacies.

      • Oh, you’ve made “observations” not assumptions.

        Like your “observation” that I’m sexist? Well, this was a poor observation. And rather assumptive given the context which you drew it from.

        Or maybe your “observation” on where I *must* get my research regarding homosexuality. Or is it that rhetorical question you asked that allows you to avoid responsibility?

        I do love an atheists logic regarding burden of proof…

        Like when one says all religions are wrong but I’m not going to show *all* religions wrong just the ones I’m familiar with. And if anyone disagrees with me they must prove [their] religion is right.

        Let’s see…the claim was “all religions are wrong.” Therefore the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not on the one who objects. This is a different claim than the rat boat not existing. Had you stated that no gods or the Christian god does not exist then your link has merit. But that wasn’t the original claim in your post or the objection that was being made about it.

        Or what about your assumption that I only want to tar atheism with the same brush as religion. The point of my attempt to show atheism as religion was not to *tar* it, but to show that humanity irregardless of the belief in gods is often illogical and irrational at times. My point was humanity is to blame not the belief in gods. Does the belief in gods lead people to do illogical, irrational, or harmful things? Yes. But it also leads people away from those things, do you need examples? Is a god *needed* for those things to occur? Well, I believe that’s the question from the garden. Or perhaps the question humanity has been asking since we first started asking questions.

        Is it “right” for someone to raise questions and awareness about harmful things? Yes. But when you put someone in a tiny box and assume they must believe or do these “harmful” things based off of their religion and your prejudice, you are the one who is wrong.

        Sorry, I was using satire not irony in many of my comments and posts. Especially: The Atheists Creed.

        Another one of your assumptions, oh wait it was an observation, I’m sorry. Was that; I *would* support slavery because someone thought it a good idea. That I must just follow blindly to what others have told me, no mind for myself: Right? Wrong!

        Ooh, one of my faves is when you call me a liar. And you believe your cut and paste supports you claim. Jolly good show. Maybe if you ask nicely I’ll try my best to explain what I intended or meant better to you. You know clarify what the author meant rather than what the reader interpreted it as.

        And another great example is that I *simply must* be praying for you to be converted. Em, nope haven’t been praying for Vel to be converted. Oh that pesky rhetorical question again.

        Have you taken note from my original comment that you’ve asked me very similar questions? Sure they are worded differently but they are asking essentially the same thing.

        Here is where I expect you to give me all the reasons you believe my comments or claims are wrong, lies, false, or simply can’t be true because KD is mistaken somehow. Let’s see if I’m right in my assumption!

      • Yep, KD, I’ve made observations and I can support those observations with quotes from you. The evidence indicates you are sexist. You told me to spend time with my husband and have babies. And hilariously, you’ve said it’s hard for you to believe that Vel could dare make a decision without her husband’s influence. She surely couldn’t be responsible for her own conclusion about atheism.

        It’s so cute to see you again lie about me. Where did I say I knew where you “must” get your research regarding homosexuality. Hmmm, KD? Where did I say that you only could be using “Christian” research. Come on KD, evidence for your claims. You’ve made the claim about there being something true, it’s up to you to show it true. Just like the rat ship: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/what-the-boss-likes-a-great-demonstration-of-burden-of-proof/

        I don’t care what you love about atheists and burden of proof. It doesn’t change that the burden of proof of my supposed logical fallacies, etc falls on you to provide. Reality doesn’t change just because KD decides that he doesn’t like it.

        All religions are wrong because they cannot show that they are right. We have positive claims from these religions and they *all* fail. No religion can show that it is true. Not yours, not Wicca, not Islam, etc. No religion on the face of the planet can show that it is true and there is no reason to believe any of their claims. You claim that your god exists and that other gods exist. Evidence for this, KD? No. Evidence for miracles or the special events of your religion, the flood, the exodus, the feeding of the masses, the resurrection? No. Lots of claims, just like every other religion.
        Here’s where I show I have no problem with having evidence and thus accepting the burden of proof: I can show evidence that those magical events didn’t happen, but other things did, precluding the mythical nonsense. Miracles can be shown not to have happened because we don’t see any amputees suddenly getting their legs back (gods evidently only can handle things no one can see or diagnose). People also aren’t being magically fed when hungry which gods supposedly can do repeatedly, manna and quail, loaves and fishes… Now, you wan to play games with bbut but there could be some religion that Vel doesn’t know about that is true. Yep, go ahead and find it, KD. Why, the reptiloids of Zeta Reticuli 4 have the true religion, so Vel is wrong! Huzzah!

        We still do not see that your religion is true at all KD. You have made positive claims and yep, you have the burden of proof. None of your claims are true. You cannot show them to be. You want to play pretend they are, but if no one else is playing you have nothing. And KD, you also demand that people who disagree with you show themselves right. You’ve claimed that you did not have a negative opinion of religion. You thought I could not show evidence that you did; I was able to show that you do.

        There is no difference between someone claiming a rat boat exists and someone claiming a god exists. With no evidence, there is no reason to believe either claimant. I have provided my evidence that all religions are wrong. Can you provide yours for any of your claims, like I have made logical fallacies? That your god was responsible for your ring? That your god exists at all?

        You have tried to claim that atheism is a religion. You have claimed that you do not have negative feelings toward religion but I have quoted you saying the exact opposite. You have yet to show that atheism is “illogical and irrational”.

        Now, you try to claim that humanity is to blame for the wrongs of the world, not the belief in gods. You want to somehow separate the belief in gods from humanity, which is hilarious, KD. It is the belief in gods that causes, directly, so many of these problems. It is the delusion that one group of people is better than another because of what they worship. It is the delusion that some god that has no evidence of existing will heal someone of a disease that they die of. At best, you have argued that the belief in gods is a null point, that it does good and evil, just like most everything humans do. There is no supernatural forced involved at all, KD. And we do not need to believe in magical nonsense to be good at all. So all of the nonsense that your god is a moral absolute and that it is the ultimate power are stories made up by humans. We have other things to help us to good that do not need belief in something that will send us to hell or heaven. So we can get rid of something that does cause harm and good and replace it with something that just does good. The “question from the garden” is moot if there is no garden, and thus your “savior” is pointless too since if the garden is nonsense, so is Jesus.

        Since I can point out all of the harm that religions cause, and that only religion causes, there is evidence that religion is harmful. It is not just humans doing something bad with religion, it is religion itself since the holy books say to do all of those stupid harmful things. Do you want to claim that your holy books are wrong? That we don’t understand what the god involved “really” meant? Again, how can we tell what is what? What you claim to be true, KD? What another does? How do we know? Or do we go with reality and not claim that gods somehow control us and reality, something that has been shown to be true again and again? I am not putting anyone in a “tiny box”, I am working with what they claim to believe and what they do because of it. It is not what I believe, it is what they do. For instance, KD, you have lied to me. Repeatedly. I have no problem putting you in a tiny box of your own construction.

        Oh, now it’s “satire”, not “irony”. No, KD, it’s neither one. You are trying to revise history again. Incidentally, irony is often part of satire. In irony or satire, one expresses an opposite idea using what seem to be positive words. For example, Marc Antony’s speech about Brutus, he’s there to praise him but does anything but. If you are using satire, are you pretending to be a Christian then? Are you just pretending that atheists are bad but really mean that they are good? Can you show me where you used satire? If not, it seems that you are only using another vague claim that you cannot support? In the Atheists creed, are you then not insisting that we all don’t believe in judging others?

        Slavery? Well, we have you claiming that if I dare discriminate against anything, I’m wrong. I discriminate against slavery and slavers. Am I wrong, KD? Do you not discriminate against slavery and slavers? Your bible says that slavery is fine. Indeed “We are back to the fact that your bible fails to *ever* speak against slavery( when is selling your daughter *ever* a good thing?).” Do you believe that since your bible says it? We have a book that claims to be from an omnipotent omniscient being, that people claim to know what it really wants to be followed. Do we follow slavery is fine? Do we ignore that? Do we claim that parts are not meant for us? How is that determined?

        I would hope that you don’t agree with slavery, but your god says it’s fine. Nope you don’t follow other blindly, you’ve decided that you know something either better than your god or that you know better than other humans. Again, no god needed, just human delusions. I’m glad you do that. It also shows that your belief is nonsense and not needed at all.

        I call you a liar and then support it with your own comments. I know that my cut and pastes support my claims. Again, reality doesn’t care what KD wants to believe. I don’t ask liars “nicely” for anything. I am not interested in what you want to make up you “really” meant. You said it, you are responsible.
        You haven’t been praying for me to be converted? Tsk. Again, another bit of evidence that you and other Christians don’t agree on what TrueChristians are or should do. And no, KD, I haven’t noted that I’ve asked you “very similar questions”. You may show me where this is the case, but one more vague claim to excuse yourself means nothing.

        And why yes, I will show you to be wrong again and again. I know you really really hope I won’t, to the point that you try to scare me away from doing so by implying I’m skeered if I show KD to be right. “Here is where I expect you to give me all the reasons you believe my comments or claims are wrong, lies, false, or simply can’t be true because KD is mistaken somehow. Let’s see if I’m right in my assumption!”

        Why, KD, you’re right about something! Hallelujah!

      • Vel, I really do hope for your sake that you realize one day how illogical, irrational, and ridiculous you’ve sounded during this conversation. Unfortunately for me and the rest of the world, you likely won’t and we will continue to read your garble.

      • Ah, so still no evidence for your claims, KD. We have you hoping for something that will not happen because that is all you have left, making more false accusations with nothing to support them.

        You have, of course, not shown one instance of me being illogical, irrational and ridiculous. You again make baseless claims about me in an attempt to claim that you are right.

        You have intentionally refused to answer questions honestly put to you. You have repeatedly lied about many things, KD, from my using logical fallacies to claiming you never said anything negative about religion. You have done such a lovely job of trying to blame a child for not figuring out the world’s problems in order to excuse your god’s inaction and evident nonexistence. That alone made all of this time replying to you worth it.

        You have tried to claim that you used irony and then satire but cannot show that this is the case. I have shown you what they both are and given you time to provide evidence of your claims. All we have is you doing your best to be insulting with your baseless accusations. If there was evidence of your claims, you could defend yourself, but you either choose not to for reasons unknown to me or there is nothing to defend with, which seems to be the case since I cannot find any evidence that your claims are true and you cannot provide it.

        Please do continue reading my posts, KD. I rather doubt the “rest of the world” does. Keep posting here too. I will keep asking you for evidence and pointing out your nonsense and lies.

      • You have stumbled upon something profound. For reasons unknown to you I have chosen not to show you the evidence. You should ponder that, not entirely sure why the reasons are “unknown” as I’ve explained a number of them. You simply have refused to listen and been rather argumentative regarding them. Seems you’ve decided to believe in your nonsense that “there is no evidence of my claims.” I wonder if that has played a role in my not providing you evidence? To allow you to find it for yourself, the truth in our conversation, rather than you believing in nonsense? But again, let’s hear your argument/excuse against this comment???

        Also, while you reflect on the above comment you may also want to reflect on why you have “insulted” by my comments. Are you offended when someone speaks to you the way you speak/treat them? Yes, you’ll use the “I don’t have any respect for you or I don’t care what you think (b/c your a liar making false accusation), but is that the truth? You seem to care about truth and reality, yet you would rather hold on to your subjective beliefs then face the truth and reality of our conversation. You’ve made extremely poor observations, provided poor arguments, displayed poor logic, been irrational in holding to your beliefs about the “evidence,” and been insulting towards me. And yet, if I don’t “show” you where you have done this you will continue to believe in your nonsense? Really does make one wonder why they would keep the evidence from you? Go on, use your “baseless claims” and “liar” arguments all you want, it doesn’t change the truth, just allows you to hold onto the lie you’d prefer to believe!

      • Profound? There is nothing profound in what you have been doing, KD. You have intentionally lied repeatedly, made false accusations, and have been unable to support your claims. It is curious and at the moment unknown *why* you do this. You purport to be a Christian, someone who believes what the bible says. It says repeatedly that one should not lie, not for any reason. And yet you do. I can make educated guesses why you do this but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could have some possible, but unlikely, excuse for your behavior.

        You have claimed that you have “chosen” to not show me the evidence. You have claimed it is there and that anyone who is intelligent enough could determine if it was there or not. Since I am intelligent, despite your claims to the contrary, and I have not found this evidence, nor has anyone else, this indicates that there is no evidence for your nonsense. And thus, your “reasons” for not showing me are false.

        I have not refused to listen. That is yet another repeated lie from you, KD. I have intently listened and replied to all of your claims as can be seen from the many comments here. I have indeed been argumentative when you have lied and made false claims. That’s what you get when you try to bear false witness and someone defends themselves against such pathetic actions. It seems that you hope that no one will mind when you lie about them and will support your nonsense willingly. Alas, that is not the case here.

        There is still no evidence for your claims, KD. None at all. I do love how you now want to blame me for your inability and unwillingness to provide evidence for your lies. Shucks, KD just wants me to find the truth for myself. And I have. I have indeed found for myself that there is no evidence for your claims, or truth in your claims. So, until you can provide this supposed evidence, we are left with accepting that I have done exactly as you asked and have found nothing.

        I think you have told me to “reflect” on why I have been insulted by your comments. I can’t be sure since you seem to have forgotten an important word for your sentence to make any sense here: “Also, while you reflect on the above comment you may also want to reflect on why you have “insulted” by my comments.” Nope, KD, I’m not offended if someone tells me the truth. I do get miffed when someone like you lies to me and about me. I don’t have any respect for someone like that KD and I have no respect for you. You have yet to show me where I have lied, where I have made any logical fallacies in my comments, where I am unintelligent, etc. All baseless claims by KD when he can’t answer a question and must go for personal attacks.

        You make more claims that I would rather hold onto my “subjective beliefs”. Okay, show me where this has happened, KD. Show me where I have made a statement that is subjective and I have not supported with evidence. I have repeatedly shown where you have lied, e.g. when you claimed that you never said anything negative about religion, I quoted you thoroughly from your very own blog. You have yet to show that your claims are true, much less that they are accurate to reality. Your insistence does not make reality change just for KD, and again, your claims are nothing without evidence. I can claim loudly and repeatedly that I have seen reptiloid aliens and they have probed me, but without evidence those are stories, not facts. Just like all of your claims, KD, stories, not facts.

        More lies about how I have made “extremely poor observations, provide poor arguments and displayed poor logic”, and of course not one single bit of evidence to support such nonsense. If I have, KD, show me where. I cannot find a single instance of any of these. I can show where I have made good observations, good arguments and good logic. I have provided quotes from you with links so everyone can see them in context. You have done none of this, and this underlines that you have nothing more than vague claims and lies, not actual facts. You claim I am “irrational” and have yet to prove it. You also claim that I have been insulting to you. Funny how this complaint comes only after I have made it against you. It’s no surprise that you have done this since you have tried the same technique before, making a complaint against me after I have cited your failures and have supported them. Of course, your complaints never have any evidence.

        Finally, we have you trying to be a bully again, KD. You try your hardest to try to make me afraid of confronting you with your lack of evidence. Why yes, KD, if you don’t show me where I have done anything like your claims, I will continue to believe that you are a liar and a willful one. Your actions don’t make me wonder at all why you would keep evidence from me. I know you don’t have any. It’s why you think you should lie and can lie if you believe in the Christian god that makes me amused and curious. It’s not “profound”, it so very human.

      • Here answer me one question that will determine my presence here: Are you still trying to win an argument? Simple yes or no will do. If you say “yes,” I will bid farewell. If you say “no,” I might stick around and share my thoughts. You might even get the “reasons” I’ve chosen not to show you evidence or get me to copy links to why I believe you’ve done as I’ve claimed.

        But in continuing the conversation you will be require you to put your beliefs, practices, and attitudes aside.

        Just in case you are wondering, I too will be suspending my beliefs, practices, and attitudes if we continue. It shall be a purely logical and objective review of our conversation. Also, we will need to stay focused on the task and not get side tracked by tangents.

      • No one, including me, cares if you are here or not, KD. You are one more TrueChristian in the world who makes baseless claims and cannot support your claims with facts. You are just like the lovely Ken Ham with your nonsense. I don’t care if you stick around at all. It’s up to you to support your claims or not. You’ve chosen to not do so, despite repeated requests. Your attempt now to try to blame me for your refusal and ineptness is very sweet, and very expected.

        And which argument, KD? The one about religion being harmful? I have won the argument about that long ago, KD. I made the claims and supported them with facts. It was especially helpful when you arrived and showed by your actions that belief in some supernatural force doesn’t make anyone a better person and indeed seems to make them do things that are not honest.

        If you are referring to another argument, you’ll have to explain which one.

        It’s so cute to watch you think you can make more false promises in order for me to beg you to stay around and say things I certainly don’t mean. No, KD, I know by this point that you have no “reasons”, other than the evidence doesn’t exist, to not show me the evidence that you claim. You’ve lied again and again, and I’m happy to see you stuck in those lies.

        I am curious on how you will “be suspending my beliefs, practices and attitudes” and claim to use only logic and objectivity. That will be fun to watch since you’ve failed so far.

      • I’ll just say, I have found the fictional KD and make believe reality you’ve constructed from your arguments quite entertaining.

        Bye bye Vel.

      • More lies from KD, how “rare”. Please do show how I have misrepresented you, KD or created a fictional version of you. Alas, for you, I have supported my claims about you with evidence. Your own words have been very helpful with showing that you are a liar and an excellent example of how some TrueChristians can act. Your actions have also done an excellent job of showing that belief in god/s is indeed harmful and nothing more than the invention of humans to make believe some magical being agrees with them. Still no evidence presented by KD for his lies about me using logical fallacies, still nothing to support his claims. No, we get KD showing his supposed evidence on his own blog:http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/an-atheist-blogger-believes-all-fish-can-survive-in-salt-water/ and not even mentioning it here to me. That speaks volumes about how valid even KD finds it to be. Then KD insists that he is not lying about “An atheist blogger believes all fish can survive in salt water” when of course that isn’t true at all. Unsurprisingly, KD has made the further false claim that I didn’t actually read his post on his blog. Again, it’s one more untrue claims by KD. To make the point clear to KD, he can see a quick response here now since I am sure he’s reading this post.

        Let’s take a quick look at his claim, that I have somehow made the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle

        1.All Z is B
        2.Y is B
        3.Therefore, Y is Z

        Now, I said in my initial post, that I find all religions useless and harmful now. They may have had some use at one point but now they are pointless, jus like tribalism is. I have cited evidence how religions are harmful from how it wastes resources to how people kill their children in their delusion that some god will heal them.

        Now, let’s look at the syllogism that KD makes up:

        “All fish need water to survive.
        All Oceans contain salt water.
        Some fish are found in Oceans.
        Therefore all fish can survive in salt water.”

        Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t fit the actual formula. It doesn’t even resemble what I said. He then tries to claim that my argument is thus:

        “All people who are illogical or irrational are wrong.
        All people who harm others are wrong
        Some people (in all religions) are illogical/irrational and/or do harm to others.
        Therefore all people (of all religions) are wrong.”

        I would love to see him show how all people who are illogical or irrational “aren’t” wrong because of their irrationality or illogic. I guess it’s okay for people to harm others per KD since he’s astonished anyone would find that wrong. Religions/believe in supernatural forces causes harm as I have demonstrated with evidence (they can cause good but religion is not needed to cause good and thus is useless, as I have said in that initial post). KD has not shown that religions are *not* wrong, for he has not presented any evidence that their claims are true. He still thinks that he doesn’t have to show his claims are true, and again hasn’t a clue about the burden of proof falling on the person who has made the claim. I made the positive claim that that religion/belief in gods causes harm and I have supported that claim with evidence. He has not shown that religion/belief in gods, any religion/belief in gods is true and he has not shown that they do not cause harm from their mere existence.

        “She viciously attacks her “opponent” with what she believes are justified accusations, but are rather misunderstandings of what is being said and her personal prejudices against religion.” Such baseless claims, KD, still nothing to show that I am irrational or illogical or that I “misunderstood” anything you said. Still no actual quotes from me to demonstrate any of your false claims. For someone who claims to believe in a god that purportedly hates liars, you don’t seem overly concerned with what you do. As always, convenience always outweighs belief when it comes to so many TrueChristians. You’re always welcome here to post.

      • Vel, this counter argument is not worth a dignified response. If you must believe your version of reality to the truth, then you demonstrate that you don’t believe what you claim. By the way, your above comment is proof of everything I’ve claimed about you. If I have to show you why, it proves that you are not very intelligent to figure it out on your own, why you are illogical and irrational, that you misrepresent what is being said, and not that you haven’t read the post: but you read it poorly.

        You will state I’m making more vague and baseless claims against you without showing evidence or explaining to you “why.” That is not a defense Vel, it is an invisible veil you are hiding behind to continue in your delusion.

        You don’t seem to realize that my not defending my claims made it convenient for you to believe the lie you wanted to believe about our conversation: a fictitious KD and a perfectly logical/right Vel. But it doesn’t mean that because it was convenient that it is true.

        My comments and actions mean/resemble/demonstrate a number of things. That was intentional. Of which you still haven’t grasped what the intention was as you are still focused on “winning” an argument. Sad, truly sad, for me to observe another atheist who simply doesn’t comprehend. And would rather believe their version of reality than to be open-minded and objective.

      • Again, KD, I see that you can’t actually tell me why I’m wrong, so you take refuge in claiming that now my refutation of your claims isn’t “worth a dignified response”. How not surprising at all, once more seeing that you insist I’m wrong but being unable to show how and why, just more vague claims.

        KD, you have yet to show that my claims aren’t true and that my “version of reality” isn’t based on the truth. I will have to say that this sentence is quite a lovely one with its vast meaninglessness: “. If you must believe your version of reality to the truth, then you demonstrate that you don’t believe what you claim.”

        And yes, KD, you do have to show evidence of your claims. It’s very cute of you to insist that if I ask you for evidence that simply *must* meant that I am “not very intelligent”. Alas for you, KD, you haven’t shown that to be true either. It’s such a typical tactic of a TrueChristian, to try to avoid having to support their claims and resorting to personal attacks. I am very intelligent and that is why I demand evidence. I do not take baseless claims as the truth.

        Again, please do show where I am “illogical and irrational”. You keep making such claims and I have asked for evidence of this. You have consistently refused to provide evidence of such things. You simply hide behind claims that if I don’t agree with you, I must be stupid. I do have to wonder if you act this way outside of our discussion.

        Again, we have you claiming that I have read your posts “poorly” and that I have misrepresented you. Not surprisingly, you cannot support this claim either. I have shown your claims to be false and I have often done that with your own words, KD. You have yet to show me such evidence as I have shown you. You now claim that you didn’t say that I didn’t read your post. You did, KD, and you did not say that I simply “read it poorly”. “So glad you finally read my post. Appears you haven’t read the whole thing, because then you would understand that I did not bear false witness against you.”

        I of course will restate that you are making more vague and baseless claims again because you *are*, KD. Still nothing to show where I have done the things you’ve claimed. I have refuted your claim that I have used logical fallacies , by asking you to provide evidence that I have and when you claim I have used the fallacy of the undistributed middle, I show that I have not. Unsurprisingly, we have you again claiming that if I weren’t stupid, I’d be able to see these instances that you claim exist, but that you are unable to show.

        I realize that your inability to provide evidence for your claims does indeed make it easy to realize that you are lying. And again, you try to claim that I have created a straw man KD. Please do show where I have done this, KD. I have quoted you directly when rebutting your claims. It’s rather hard to do that and to have supposedly created a strawman that didn’t say anything you have. But we do get to see again where you try to create a straw man of me, KD, when you claim that I have insisted that I am perfectly logical and right. Where have I done that, KD? In showing that you are wrong time and again? No, KD, that’s not insisting that I am perfect. That is showing that you aren’t.

        Your comments and actions have demonstrated that religion does nothing special. You now claim that your comments “intentionally” mean/resemble/demonstrate a “number of things”. Wow, KD, what a lovely example again of a person trying to retcon his comments and ignore reality. It’s rather similar to how TrueChristians try to claim that their bible doesn’t really meant what it says. Now, it’s KD’s comments being so very mysterious and intricate that no one can know what he meant and thus he thinks he can pretend that he was not caught in lie after lie. Now, KD has some mysterious intention behind what he said and those words aren’t really such nonsense at all. What fun!

        I do comprehend you and your claims, KD. You can pretend I haven’t, but again belief in things that don’t exist doesn’t make them true. Not your claims and not your god. Finally, I get to see more lies about me not being open minded and objective. How nice. Again, KD, please do support your claims. Show me that the reality that I have given evidence for is not real. Show me that your claims of miracles are true. Show that your god exists at all. Simply claiming that I “don’t comprehend” doesn’t make it true, KD. All theists claim this when it comes down to it, that non-believers in whatever faith they hold somehow can’t comprehend their truth and when asked for evidence of this truth, still insist that it is a matter of comprehension, e.g. of translating it “correctly”, of knowing what their god “really” means and wants, of accepting claims without evidence because the believer insists it’s true.

      • You haven’t show me wrong time and again. You simply believe you have done this. You believe because you have “refuted” my points with “evidence” that you are right.

        You counter argument that states you have not committed the fallacy if the undistributed middle displays you do not understand the fallacy nor what was said in my post. You will note that I provided the simple form of the fallacy, an analogous form of fallacy you committed, and the your argument from you post demonstrating why you’ve committed the fallacy. You took that my analogy of the fish not fitting the simple form *exactly* meant that it is “not” the same fallacy.

        Here’s another example for you to learn how the fallacy looks in a more complex version.

        All baseball players wear uniforms at work.
        All baseball players wear hats at work.
        My uncle and his co-workers wear uniforms and hats at work.
        Therefore my uncle and co-workers are baseball players.

        In your post, you state general claims that any human being can be guilty of (all people), then you use a small example that supports your claim but is not a representation on all people of every religion in their beliefs practices or attitudes (some people) and then conclude that it means all religions do as you claim. So your post follows as such in a simple form:

        All people who are illogical/irrational/harm others are wrong.
        Some people believe in gods which lead them to believe illogical/irrational things or causes them to harm others.
        Therefore all religions are wrong.

        It commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle as it does not account for all people of every religion but only a handful. Because you can provide evidence for what some people of some religions believe is not proof that all religions are wrong.

        For you to argue that you would love to see me show you how being illogical/irrational is not wrong misses the point of what is said. My argument was never as you say. It was derived from you post as to why you believe religions are “useless,” in that you find the belief in gods illogical and irrational. Again, you don’t provide evidence of “why believing in gods” is illogical or irrational, but make a claim/argument that you believe proves your point. That you could see at one point religion had a use but that it is no longer necessary or useful. You make a rather vague and unsupported claim and you use an analogy that it’s like tribalism to support your claim but this again is a straw man and misrepresents what people who follow religion actually believe.

        You continue to argue that you are right and try and find ways to argue points that you “think” you can win that aren’t related to the original points being made. You chose not to focus on the conversation and took comments I made on my blog to “support” your claim that I am a liar…in politics that is called mudslinging, can’t refute what your opponent says let’s use personal attacks to “win.” It’s the same with calling me sexist. In both cases you use my words and twist was is said to fit your claim/argument. This does not automatically make what you say true as it is a misrepresentation of what has been said. Again, it’s all a feeble attempt to “win” an argument. It’s not very logical, yet you seem to believe it is. Your continued arguing is like a pitcher thinking, as long as I throw the ball over the plate I will get a strike.

        Vel, arguments are inherently subjective and closed-minded. That’s why I’ve been avoiding any number of your requests. I am sorry that I allowed myself to get sucked in. I came here to understand what and why you believe what you believe, not to argue about the existence of gods. This is what you have been trying to make it about. Again, because you believe this an argument you can “win.” You have failed to understand my presence and my comments and yet you are insistent that you have understood them. Vel, you are wrong, you cannot read my mind or other theists minds, you do not understand the meaning of my comments or posts better than I do. Everything you’ve said has misrepresented what I’ve said, my decision not to clarify “why or how” you misrepresented what was said is because of your continual argumentation and misrepresentation of what I say. This is a highly irrational behavior I’ve observed. It’s not as you claim that you. It shows you are not willing to listen to what is being said but using what you believe is being said and formulating an argument from that. Again, this is being subjective and closed-minded as you don’t explore or clarify to understand but insist on your version of what is being said to create an argument against it.

        You admitted that you had no respect for me from the start. Was this because you visited my blog and saw I was a Christian or simply because I disagreed with you post? My guess is you held a pre-conceived notion/desire that you would be able to find something I said or believed to “use against” me, such as calling me a liar, a sexist, or asking questions about slavery, homosexuality, or even abortion. You “found the evidence you hoped for” which is actually confirmation bias of what you wanted to believe about me. Your evidence doesn’t support reality but is simply a personal attack.

        You stated that you hold American beliefs. So do you vote for the candidate who lies the least or do you vote for the candidate of a particular political affiliation?

        I also believe you made a comment about porn not being harmful. For someone who is opposed to lies and sexism this is a strange stance. As porn lies/misrepresents sex and beauty. It is highly sexist as it presents women as sexual objects and promotes that women “must” be more liberal sexually to have orgasmic sex. The argument seems that because it’s an individuals choice and a form of entertainment that it cannot be viewed as wrong or harmful. It’s about a step above prostitution and two steps above human sex trafficking if you ask me and just as harmful to society.

      • No, KD, I have shown you wrong time and time again. I’ve shown it with evidence. For instance, you have claimed that you had a miracle from your god in regards to the ring. I have shown that the sequence of events required no divine intervention at all. You claimed that you didn’t claim that this event was a miracle, but I shows that claiming divine intervention is exactly how a miracle is defined. You claimed that you never said anything “negative” about religion and I quoted you directly saying how bad religion was and how you wished you were not involved in it. I have pointed out where your claims of using irony were false. And on and on. It is not me believing something and not being able to support it. I have shown you wrong and a liar time and time again. I do not “simply believe” I have done this; I have. You may continue to deny the evidence I have presented, KD. That does not change reality, no matter how much you might wish it did.

        I do understand the fallacy of the undistributed middle and I did understand your post. Again, we get to see you whine that I didn’t understand something that you wrote as an excuse, KD. Ooh, again we have that KD’s comments are so mysterious and intricate that no one can understand what they “really” mean, no matter what they actually say. I have demonstrated that I did so with my refutation, which of course you don’t address. You have lied that I somehow believe all fish are one thing or the other. You still cannot show how what I have said is false or is using the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Your fish analogy doesn’t fit the form of the fallacy or what I said. And repeating the same thing using baseball still fails, KD. Let’s look at what you said my argument was:
        “All people who are illogical or irrational are wrong.
        All people who harm others are wrong
        Some people (in all religions) are illogical/irrational and/or do harm to others.
        Therefore all people (of all religions) are wrong.”

        And the form is:
        1.All Z is B
        2.Y is B
        3.Therefore, Y is Z.

        If we follow this, the argument would be:
        All people who are illogical or irrational are wrong (as far as I can tell, there is no need for the second sentence)
        Some people (in all religions) are irrational/illogical and/or do harm to others
        Therefore, all people (of all religions) are wrong.

        I have said that all people in all religion have no evidence their religions are true. By that fact, believers are irrational and illogical because they believe in things that have no support, as anyone who believes in fairies, in Santa Claus, in astrology, etc. I know that all religious people have not caused direct harm and have never said otherwise; that does not preclude them from all being wrong.

        I have said that religion may have once had a use, but as I have also said, that use is long gone and any benefit from religion can be gained elsewhere without having to pay for that benefit by putting up with all of the harm religion causes.

        You have still yet to show that any religions are right, much less your very own version of Christianity. And yes, KD, before you falsely protest again, you *have* said your version is right when you said that anyone who didn’t agree with you “misuses” the bible. If you claim that you know that they are using it *wrong*, you are claiming that you know you are right.

        It does not surprise me at all that you will not address my question to you of how being illogical/irrational is not wrong. My asking this does not miss the point at all, because all of this has revolved around your attempt to claim that I am wrong. I have pointed out how religion fails at supporting its claims. Religions are useless if they provide no benefit and religions do not provide any benefits that are uniquely from it. Believing in things that do not exist is illogical and irrational because it has nothing to do with reality. Let me give an example, if I believe that some god will heal my child, that is illogical and irrational because that will not happen, no matter how hard I might wish it would. It is harmful because the child will suffer. I wonder, is this enough evidence for you of why believing in gods is irrational and illogical?

        Nice lies again, KD. I did not make a vague and unsupported comparison of tribalism and religion. I cited examples, KD. Tribalism and religion attempts to make believe that one group of people is somehow special and more deserving than other humans. It is based on faulty beliefs that a god somehow supports them, or that they have some special quality that no others have. I know what people who are religious “actually” believe, KD. I was one of those people at one point. Take my former faith, Presbyterian Christianity for instance. They believe in predestination and that only certain people will ever get into heaven. The pathetic arrogance of that is amazing, because all of them are sure that they are the “elect” e.g. that they are special. You think your god answers your prayers because you are special e.g. a Christian who has the right answer. We can go into every other religion and they all are sure that they have the truth, or they wouldn’t be believing in what they do, and will be treated better than everyone else.

        KD, I know I’m right when it comes to religion’s harm and your lies and other failure. I do not think I am right all of the time, and never have said so. I am amused that you are so supposedly aghast that I am “trying to win” when you keep telling me I’m wrong. Golly, KD, seems like you are trying to win too. I have not taken your comments out of context. I have quoted them and linked to them so all of the context can be seen. Your claims that I have taken things out of context is no more than the usual Christian claim that non-believers are taking their god “out of context” too, when pointing out how nasty the Christian god is. Unfortunately for you and your religion, that old excuse works in neither instance when the context can be seen and you can’t depend on the ignorance of the listener to support your lies.

        I have focused on the conversation, KD, and it is again hilarious to see you lie about that again. I have answered all of your nonsense in detail and if I had not focused on the conversation, that would be rather difficult. Oh darn, I took comments you made and showed how they demosntrated you were a liar. No, KD, that’s not mudslinging, that is telling the truth. You claimed that you never said anything negative about religion but did? Darn, how dare anyone show your attempts at deception. I’m sure political candidates also don’t like it, but it’s a pity how reality always wins. Oh,and KD? Mudslinging is “the use of personal attacks or insults in order to undermine an opponent”. I have used your own words, not personal attacks or insults.

        I have shown that you are sexist. I am not sorry at all to reveal you using your own actions and words. I did not twist one word of yours, KD. But again, if you wish to show evidence, please do. I quoted you directly, not one twist needed. And no, KD, I don’t think that as long as I throw the ball over the plate I’ll get a strike. One more attempt from you to make baseless claims about me. I think that as long as I use evidence and logical thinking, I can show your claims wrong.

        Wow, so how did you come up with the baseless claim that “arguments are inherently subjective and close-minded”? That’s lovely and utterly without one fact to support it. Arguments are to determine the truth by comparison of claims, a good definition is “attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident”. You have made claims that you are right, KD, so is what you say “inherently subjective and close-minded”? Or is it that anyone but you is “inherently subjective and close-minded”? You came here to tell me that I was wrong, KD. Nice try but we can look at your posts and know that you are not the poor innocent that you want to claim to be, only wanting to know someone else’s position. No, KD, you came here to tell the atheist she was wrong. All of your comments have done that, including this little gem “Here answer me one question that will determine my presence here: Are you still trying to win an argument? Simple yes or no will do. If you say “yes,” I will bid farewell. If you say “no,” I might stick around and share my thoughts. You might even get the “reasons” I’ve chosen not to show you evidence or get me to copy links to why I believe you’ve done as I’ve claimed.” Hmmm, I’ve answered that question and here you still are, KD.

        I can read your posts, KD, and I don’t need to read your mind to see what you have said. Again, you try to claim that your posts are misunderstood when I can show how they fail. Awfully nice way to avoid admitting that you’ve failed and that it’s not your fault but everyone elses. You have refused to clarify what you supposedly “really meant”and that is just grand since that’s exactly what theists depend on when their religions are shown to be so miserable. Since you can’t support your claims of how I misunderstand you, there is no reason to think that there is any evidence at all, KD. Why would anyone refuse to give evidence to support their claims if they had it? It seems that you have nothing just like creationists have nothing to support their claims, conspiracy theorists have nothing to support their claims, etc, and all insist that they are right and how dare anyone question them. If you, or they, had the evidence they claimed, the argument/discussion/conversation would be completely different because there would not be reasons to doubt baseless claims. You have done nothing but try to blame me for your inability to support your claims, making false claims that I have been supposedly irrational, that I have not read what you have written, and the best ones, that I dare to continue to show to counter your false claims. It is not irrational in the least to continue to dispute false claims. Indeed, it would be irrational and illogical to allow lies to remain un challenged. For example, people have constantly refuted the lies of Holocaust deniers. Are they irrational to continue to do that?

        Claiming that my actions are irrational is amusing since you can of course not show this to be the case. It seems that anyone who disagrees with you is to be deemed “irrational” and “illogical”, which certainly is a rather subjective stance. I suspect that I am not the only one you claim is illogical and irrational when they dare to disagree with your claims.
        No, KD, I have not said that I had no respect for you from “the start” and it appears you mean that I disrespected you from the start. You have lied about me, KD, and you have done so repeatedly. You have done so again right here when you say I have had no respect for you from the start. At the start, I had no respect for you or disrespect for you. You were neutral. Your actions have repercussions. It’s nice to see you attempt to again portray me as someone “close-minded” but again you fail. I know all Christians aren’t constant and intentional liars. Some actually pay attention to their holy book and follow its admonition against lying. I know that many Christians don’t do this. You had as much chance in being one type as another. Your guess, as with most of your guesses, is wrong. I had no preconceptions, though I knew that humans can be many things.. And again, KD, I have been able to cite “chapter and verse” when it comes to those actions that you have made yourself and that have painted you as a sexist, a liar and a TrueChristian, one who thinks that his and only his version of his religion is the right one and attacks others who do not agree with him e.g. when he claims that others have “misused” his holy book.

        Your comments about slavery, homosexuality, etc and your avoidance of my questions were your own choices, KD. No one forced you to say anything you did not want to. Anyone can go back and read exactly what you said in the context you said it. You mention confirmation bias. Please do show where this has happened, KD. I asked you questions and again, no one forced you to say anything one way or the other. The responsibility for your comments is all yours. Asking questions is not a personal attack, KD. A personal attack is saying something like you are “not very intelligent”. You have said that about me multiple times, KD, and of course can’t support that claim either.

        I do hold many standard American beliefs. I do love how you again try to cast aspersions about me by again asking such loaded questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) like “So do you vote for the candidate who lies the least or do you vote for the candidate of a particular political affiliation?” That’s hilarious and quite like the old “so, have you stopped beating your wife?” No, KD, I do neither since neither case is related to this American’s beliefs. Your question contains a presupposition that is not true. Thank you for demonstrating that you are still using logical fallacies.

        I asked you to show that porn is harmful, KD, way back in November. “Please provide evidence of your claim that there is an increase in child pornography and sex solicitation online. You seem to mistake asking questions for showing actual evidence. You also claim that porn is “harmful”. Please do show how it is and how one can verify this claim. You also make the slippery slope argument that porn “could be a possible link in cases of more aggressive and physical sex crimes later in life. Of course, you again have no evidence for this. You simply want to make claims of causation and correlation and have no evidence to support either.”

        How does porn lie, KD? How does it “misrepresent sex and beauty”? You see, KD, again, I need evidence, not your vague claims. Porn *can* present women as objects, but not all of it does. And wow, just where does porn “promote that women must be more liberal sexually to have orgasmic sex”? How does it do this, KD? I have seen porn, read porn and haven’t felt that I must be “more liberal sexually” to have an orgasm. Indeed, what does “more liberal sexually” mean, KD? It seems that you only mean “liking sex that KD doesn’t approve of”. Not all people like the same kind of sex, KD. Other types are just as “normal” as whatever you think is normal. Again, you have yet to show that porn is harmful, KD. And I am indeed limiting that to what is done by consenting adults, no one else. If a man likes to show his body off, so what? If a woman likes to consume porn, so what? It is *your* opinion that porn is “about a step above prostitution and two steps above human sex trafficking.” You of course are using the slippery slope fallacy with no evidence again.

        How unsurprising.

      • I will try and address as much as possible but find that I must keep it as short and simple as possible.

        Vel, if you were a man and we had the context of our conversation was the same, I would have made the same comments. That you should spend time with your wife, maybe have a few kids, and that I am hard pressed to believe that your wife had no influence in your decision of becoming an atheist.

        Now given that information. If you were a man would you still have claimed that my comments were “sexist?”

      • Ah, how silly of me to expect an actual post with answers to my questions and points.

        I’m still waiting for you to address most things you have claimed and said, KD. Again, you make promises and I am guessing you’ll fail at fulfilling those too. It’s also great to see you asking the same questions you’ve asked before that I have already answered. As always, it seems that you are hoping for different answers to magically appear.
        I find it rather amusing that you supposedly would have made the same comments if I were a man, KD. That simply doesn’t bear up under the evidence and other comments you have made.
        Let’s see what you originally said:
        “In case you were still wondering, I’m ignoring all of you requests. And suggesting you spend more time with your husband. Maybe have a few kids. Enjoy life and the beautiful mess we live in. Understand that we are all broken people and it’s okay not to be perfect. And learn that people can believe in God and not do harm. (They can even be religious or have religion).”

        In addition to making the usual unsubstantiated claims e.g. “broken people”, you tell me that you are ignoring my requests, and telling me to spend time with my husband *and* have children. This is you addressing me, a woman. Do you understand how this sounds like a sterotypical evangelical Christian who is sure that women are secondary citizens telling me to go have kids because all women should have children like your bible says they should? You have also told me that I simply must change if I had children. I have shown that your claim is not true, and that people do not change magically when they have children. Indeed, a recent case in Pennsylvania has shown that this is not the case, when we get to see parents kill not one but two of their children because they believe in the supernatural. They do not get a clue and know not to kill their children, they are just as sadly ignorant as they were before. People with a clue continue to be people with a clue, and people without still are without.

        Then you say that my husband must have had some influence in me becoming an atheist. “No, I wasn’t going to blame your husband. It was curiosity. It’s not wrong to assume that spouses influence one another’s decisions. Married people discuss their thoughts and beliefs with one another all of the time. So while you say he had no influence over your decision, that’s likely not entirely true. His belief may have made it more difficult for you to come to your conclusion. Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down you’re rocking the boat; if you will. Although, he may also have been entirely supportive of your decision, which would have made your conclusion easier or less straining on your marriage. Either way I’m hard pressed to believe your decision was made entirely independent or devoid of your husbands influence. And I never believed he was the crux for your atheism. “

        Unsurprisingly, like your every other assumption about me but one, you were utterly wrong about this. This assumption parallels the common assumption by conservative Christians that women can’t possibly make their own decisions and have to be told what to believe and what to do by some other source. You had to know whether I became an atheist before or after I was married. And there was no reason for you to want to know this other than to make an assumption that a man had to have done something to poor ol’ Vel to change her mind. You claim “curiosity” but as I have said to you before, that is nonsense. You were fishing for cause and effect based on your apparent assumption that women can’t make such decisions on their own.

        We see that same ignorant assumption in your post about pornography, the usual oh my women are just so dumb that they will accept anything told to them: “I also believe you made a comment about porn not being harmful. For someone who is opposed to lies and sexism this is a strange stance. As porn lies/misrepresents sex and beauty. It is highly sexist as it presents women as sexual objects and promotes that women “must” be more liberal sexually to have orgasmic sex. The argument seems that because it’s an individuals choice and a form of entertainment that it cannot be viewed as wrong or harmful. It’s about a step above prostitution and two steps above human sex trafficking if you ask me and just as harmful to society.”

        You apparently think that pornography is only about women and only women are somehow deluded by it. It’s not and we’re no more easily deluded than you reading Penthouse and believing the “true” stories in them. You again apparently think that women can be swayed by all sorts of things and have to be protected from it so they don’t accept the supposed promoted ideas that women “must be more liberal sexually to have orgasmic sex”. Of course, after I asked you what the heck “liberal sexually” means or how pornography “misrepresents” sex and beauty, you won’t answer. That doesn’t surprise me at all, KD. All of your words that I have pointed out as appearing sexist taken together and in the context of all coming from a self-described Christian add up to the common attitude of Christians that sex is usually “bad” and that certain types of sex are “wrong”. You seem so shocked to see that I can draw conclusions from what you directly say, and put two and two together, KD.

        So, yes, KD, as I have said before and as you have read before, I still believe that you are a sexist man whose sexism is based in his version of his religion. It’s amusing, though a bit tedious, to have to repeat myself to you continually. Rest assured, KD, I will not change my mind thanks to anyone making repeated appeals for me to change my mind if I have plenty of evidence not to do so.

        So, still waiting for evidence for your claims.

      • We will get to the comments you made previously in good time. But I am so glad you responded to my question.

        Vel, you do realize that this response makes you sound delusional. In case you want me to provide “evidence” I shall.

        Delusional:

        1. a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief
        2. (psychiatry) a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to reason.

        Since you desire me to use direct quotes, I shall:

        “It’s also great to see you asking the same questions you’ve asked before that I have already answered. As always, it seems that you are hoping for different answers to magically appear.”

        And

        “So, yes, KD, as I have said before and as you have read before, I still believe that you are a sexist man whose sexism is based in his version of his religion. It’s amusing, though a bit tedious, to have to repeat myself to you continually. Rest assured, KD, I will not change my mind thanks to anyone making repeated appeals for me to change my mind if I have plenty of evidence not to do so.”

        While you believe your version of the evidence, it does not make what you believe or say about the evidence *true.* You have effectively stated that there is no reasonable explanation that you would accept from me to change your mind. This of course is based off of your mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, and belief about Christian males.

        As my comments were made based off of the context of our conversation and NOT off of you “being a woman” your claim of *sexism* fails. Yes, in your argument you support you claim with your belief that Christian males hold a stereotype against women and do your best to manipulate what I stated to fit your argument. This is why I made the comment of you “mudslinging” your opponent. As this is a prime example. You took something that I said OUT OF CONTEXT to use it as a personal attack or insult to undermine me (your opponent).

        It also supports my other “baseless” claims against you. It’s part of the reason I question your intelligence and your reading ability: as you fail to understand what is being said in context. I find your argument and claim logically fallible and your continued defense of your claim irrational. It is lovely how time reveals the truth.

        All the evidence shows: Is that you hold a stereotype and discrimination against (Christian) males. To me that is more evident of sexism than my comments.

        I will answer your loaded question about “stereotypical evangelical Christians…” So glad you continue to use logical fallacies Vel. Of course, I am intelligent enough that I can see “how it sounds like…” but the reality is not “how it sounds” but what the truth about it IS. The truth is not as you have claim. You’ve simply made an argument based off of a preconceived notion, off of a stereotype that YOU hold against Christian males. This shows my other “baseless” claims that you are closed-minded and subjective in your beliefs.

        As for the part of your question regarding that you believe KD is “sure that women are secondary citizens telling me to go have kids because all women should have children like your bible says they should?” Nowhere in the context of our conversation is this “evident.” Nowhere do I treat you like a secondary citizen nor am I telling you to “go have kids because the bible says you should.” This is another grand fabrication of your attempt at creating a fictional KD, one that fits into your argument against religion. You are right about one thing, that I hope my continued reasoning will help change your mind about me. But it might take a miracle !

        As for your arguments regarding my comments on pornography; again you are creating an argument from silence and not from the context of what was said. Your arguments are based off of your prejudice against me as a Christian male and the “reasons” you believe I made the comments. You do so in order to can create what you believe is a logical argument against me and my comments. You’ve failed again Vel. The truth is not as you claim.

        I do hope you find this helpful in realizing that my claims are not baseless but based on the evidence of our conversation. I also hope this helps you in sifting through your delusional and sexist remarks.

        Stay tuned as I will be addressing the next issue within a couple of days.

      • No, KD, I don’t realize that any of my responses make me sound delusional since they do not. The only source that says that they make me sound delusional is you, someone who cannot support his claims. Rather than evidence supporting your claims, we get more lovely personal attacks from you. It’s very nice that you can quote me, but again, random quotes do not show that I am delusional. Hmmm, a quote from me saying that you have asked the same questions again and appear to expect a different answer. That is indeed the case, since you have indeed asked the same questions about what I think of your quotes and if I think you are a sexist man. Your quoting of me does nothing but demonstrate that this is the truth. You have asked the questions before and you seem to think that I will change my mind magically if you ask the questions again.

        Your argument that I would not accept a reasonable explanation from you is false, unsurprisingly. It’s also one more fabricated lie that you have to make up to say that I have “essentially” said something when I have not at all. You have yet to offer a “reasonable explanation”. You have claimed that you were “curious” when you asked when I became an atheist and asked if my husband was involved. You then proceeded to say that *you*, KD, could not accept that my husband did not influence me. You have claimed that you would have told anyone, man or woman, that they needed to spend more time with their husband and to have children. There is no reason to believe this either since your bible and many many other conservative Christians like you all say that women are only here to have children. It is an assumption built on your own holy book and the actions of people just like you. I find it valid since you have continued to make what appear to be sexist comments, like your nonsense about women and pornography. It is the context of your comments, KD, that damns you. I know what Christians males are because I know them and I get to see them all of the time. Some are perfectly fine with women. Your statements show that you are not. It is not your Christianity that shows that you are sexist, it is *you*. It’s your fault, not the fault of your religion or anything else.
        KD, you may be just that ignorant not to realize how sexist your comments sound. I’ll ask you a question: have you asked what your wife thinks of your comments? Now, I can’t ensure that you would ask her or you would accurately relay what she thought. She may indeed agree with you but I do think you should ask her what she would think of a stranger telling her to spend more time with her husband and to have children to her to avoid a discussion like you have.

        Your comments were indeed based off of me being a woman. Sorry, but the comments you have wrote demonstrate this exactly. That’s why I do like a recording medium like this. Many Christian males do have an attitude towards women that is built on their religion and their supposedly holy book. Your comments have reflected this attitude without fail, KD. You want to pretend that women can’t make decisions on their own, KD. You want to make believe that women have to be protected. And that all falls into the nonsense that the bible spews. We have one tiny bit that says men and women are equal, and *all* of the other parts have that women are not to be trusted, not to teach men, not to speak out, not to anything without a male’s approval. Now, if you want to claim that the bible is all wrong in this, by all means do so. You have yet to show that I have done any mudslinging. I have only posted your comments, exactly what you have said and the context in which you said it. I have taken nothing out of context, KD. Nothing at all. Anyone can see exactly what context you told me to go away and spend time with my husband and have children, and that context is that you don’t want to discuss things, so you say you are intentionally ignoring my posts *and* you say that rather than showing how you are wrong, I should spend time with my husband and have kids. Let’s even look at more of the context:
        “In case you were still wondering, I’m ignoring all of you requests. And suggesting you spend more time with your husband. Maybe have a few kids. Enjoy life and the beautiful mess we live in. Understand that we are all broken people and it’s okay not to be perfect. And learn that people can believe in God and not do harm. (They can even be religious or have religion)
        Before you say anything against that last part, just look in the mirror and say, “Vel, look you are about to make a straw man argument, DON’T DO IT!””

        Ah yes, one more attempt to get me to not post any more about how wrong you are, by attempting to claim that I have made straw man arguments and trying to claim that I should realize how wrong I am. Of course, with no evidence again on your part.

        Oh my, again with the claims that I am somehow less than intelligent. Evidence for this, KD, other than claiming that only those who are intelligent agree with you? And questioning my reading ability? How so, since I have demonstrated that I know exactly what you have written and replied to it? And golly, more claims that my arguments and claims are “logically fallible” but again still no evidence to support this claim again. No evidence, no reason to believe your claims, KD. Alas for you, time doesn’t reveal the truth on its own, only evidence does that.

        Again, you claim that I hold a stereotype and discrimination against Christian males. I do discriminate against liars, like you, KD. I do discriminate against sexist people. I am proud of my ability to discriminate between hateful and ignorant beliefs and those that have evidence supporting them. I discriminate against *you*, KD. You are a liar and appear to have no different beliefs about women than many of your fellow believers. You make false claims against me and have no evidence to support them. You make personal attacks when you have nothing else. I like plenty of Christian males, so you are wrong again that I have some attitude against all of them. Nice attempt to try to frame me as an unthinking bigot but you’ve failed again.

        Please do show how any of my questions were loaded. I do like when you try to copy me, KD, and do your best to use my words against me. And why, KD, you shouldn’t have, another claim that I have used logical fallacies but of course you can’t show it. I do like to see those claims from you. You again claim that I am close minded and subjective in my beliefs. Okay, KD, show how I am. I have made an argument from an established fact that many evangelical Christians hold similar beliefs, KD. Or do you wish to claim that evangelical Christians do not have similar beliefs about women? I can point to a multitude of sects who are sure that women should be exactly as Paul claimed. Your words seem to convey that you also agree with them, that women should be secondary to their husbands, that women should have children, that women are easily swayed and can’t make decisions on their own. To extrapolate these attitudes to you, a self-described Christian is nothing surprising, KD. I can do the same with extrapolating the likely beliefs of many groups of people, college educated women, young black men, etc. There are often similarities and this is why stereotypes can form. They can, but not always, be true.

        You telling me to go have kids and spend time with my husband, so I wouldn’t tell you that you are wrong remember, does make it evident that you think I should not be on here telling you that you are wrong, KD. You chose to mention my husband and kids. Nothing about my other hobbies or anything else. It was husband and kids. Exactly what a sexist man or woman would tell a woman to do. You have tried to get me to quit addressing your claims repeatedly, KD. You keep trying to make me afraid of saying things that indicate you are wrong. I’ve called you out on this several times. And no, these attempts don’t make you sexist, but in concert with your other comments, it seems that you think you can frighten me easily. Again, I have not created a fictional KD. I have not had to.

        You may hope your reasoning will help change my mind. That is a faint hope since again you have no evidence for that reasoning or your claims. Your “reasoning” supposedly told you that I was in my 20s, that I was only recently married, that I was a Catholic, etc. Your reasoning is anything but trustworthy. It would indeed take a miracle, and it seems that God is evidently only up for making rings chosen or parking spaces gotten. Anything more important, well, we see how far that goes.
        Your claims about pornography are without evidence, KD. You have again made directly positive claims and have nothing to show that they are true. Just like your claims about your religion, there is no reason to believe you at all. Indeed, there is reason to not believe you since plenty of people enjoy porn and none of the doom and gloom you claim happens. You said:
        “I also believe you made a comment about porn not being harmful. For someone who is opposed to lies and sexism this is a strange stance. As porn lies/misrepresents sex and beauty. It is highly sexist as it presents women as sexual objects and promotes that women “must” be more liberal sexually to have orgasmic sex. The argument seems that because it’s an individuals choice and a form of entertainment that it cannot be viewed as wrong or harmful. It’s about a step above prostitution and two steps above human sex trafficking if you ask me and just as harmful to society.”

        Still waiting for evidence to support your histrionics. You sound like many Christians did back in the 70s and 80s about “backmasking”, heavy metal music and Dungeons and Dragons. Chicken Little, oh the sky is falling!

      • Let’s put a little more context into Vel’s claims that KD is sexist. Vel has postulated that her claim against me is “true.” And she believes they are true based on “evidence and logical reasoning” and not on her false opinion that I hold the same belief as many conservative Christian males. Now she doesn’t only refer me as a Christian male but a conservative one at that, seems she’s trying to strengthen her argument by adding the word “conservative” to her description.

        What the evidence “actually” shos is that she uses her belief of “what Christian males believe” to support her claims and uses it to make a personal attack against me i.e., that I am sexist. She doesn’t actually take the time to ask questions or understand “why” I made the comments or “what” I actually believe without attempting to get another attacking argument in against what I say.

        I have chose on a number of occasions to not respond as she truly enjoys twisting what is said and using it against her opponent with what she believes is being said. But alas, here is what Vel has stated:

        “I have shown that you are sexist. I am not sorry at all to reveal you using your own actions and words. I did not twist one word of yours, KD. But again, if you wish to show evidence, please do. I quoted you directly, not one twist needed. And no, KD, I don’t think that as long as I throw the ball over the plate I’ll get a strike. One more attempt from you to make baseless claims about me. I think that as long as I use evidence and logical thinking, I can show your claims wrong.”

        Here, Vel claims that she has not twisted one word of mine. Let’s explore one of her earlier response to my comment that she should spend time with her husband, maybe have a few kids, etc.

        “I also do not respect racists, or hmmm, sexists, KD. You know, those who would tell a woman to go tend her husband and get to having babies.”

        So I stated that Vel should spend time with her husband and she response that my comment meant that she should *tend* to her husband. “Spending time with” and “tending to” have two different meanings. By replacing time with tend she has twisted my words to mean what she wants them to mean and not what they actually mean.

        We also have Vel twisting what was said about having babies. My words exactly in context were: “maybe have some kids.” But again we see Vel twisting what was said with “what she wanted it to say,” that is a Christian male telling her to “get to having babies.” And more recently that I’ve stated, “women are only here to have children.”

        Vel, you realize this makes you a liar. In that you have twisted my words to fit your argument against them. So I wonder does Vel do as she says, “I do discriminate against liars, like you, KD. I do discriminate against sexist people. I am proud of my ability to discriminate between hateful and ignorant beliefs and those that have evidence supporting them” and discriminate against herself or is she a hypocrite?

        You have twisted my words and taken them out of context. These comments and claims from Vel are quite unsupported by actual evidence.

        Vel’s argument is that I have said these things based off of not what I actually believe but what Vel holds as an opinion against me being a “conservative Christian male.” She said “I still believe that you (KD) are a sexist man whose sexism is based in his version of his religion. “ Vel, do you understand how you’ve created your arguments from what you believe me to believe and not from what I actually believe? That while you have read some of my posts and comments, it’s based off of your interpretation and not what is actually being said or what I believe. Do you understand how subjective that is? And Vel, please do show that I am “conservative” in my Christian views?

        I will answer another of your questions. “Have you asked your wife about what she thinks of your comments?”

        Yes Vel, I have. She did not find them sexist. You see, my wife does very well at understanding the context of conversations. You continue to claim that I am something that I am not Vel. You seem to be trying to make the argument that if I asked another woman she would see your side and agree with you. Hmm, are you going to argue that my wife is also sexist now that she doesn’t agree with you?

        Vel, you have also twisted what was said regarding your decision to become an atheist and your husband’s involvement. As the comment was not made in that you are “unable to make decisions for yourself because you are a woman.” But off of your comments regarding my wife and her ring selection. You see, I stated that I did not influence my wife in making her decision of which ring to select. You stated in the form of a question that you found this hard to believe that I *must* have given her a price range or asked her to look at specific ring settings/stones that matched what I had already purchased.

        So the comment was not based off of you being a woman but off of your own argument that you were using against the story of my wife and her ring. You missed this point entirely.

        My comments regarding pornography. Are not like you say:

        “You apparently think that pornography is only about women and only women are somehow deluded by it. “

        No I do not think that pornography is only about women and only women are somehow deluded by it. You again misrepresent what is being said to argue against it. You really need to learn to listen and ask questions rather than seek out ways to argue against an opponent. You want to know the number one reason I haven’t responded to any number of your requests…because you don’t listen and would have only used what was said to make arguments against them to support your subjective and closed-minded beliefs about religion and theists.

        If you are incapable or re-reading our conversation in noticing that you do this. Or if realize that you are about to make yet another counterargument as to why KD is wrong and Vel is right, you do realize that these actions and beliefs show that you are not open-minded or objective, right?

        The one suggestion I have for you is to ask questions to clarify what is being said rather than making arguments off of your assumptions of what “was” said.

        Vel, you do realize that “thinking you can do something” and actually doing it are two separate things?

        Perhaps you should have phrased your last sentence like this: “As long as I use evidence and logical thinking, I will show your claims wrong.”

        As the way it is stating that you only “believe” or “think” you can do this but in fact you might not be able to. As far as the recommended phrasing, it could still be proven untrue if the evidence does not support your claim or poor logical thinking occurred, such is the case with your argument that “KD is a sexist.”

        You have yet to prove that my comments are what you claim. You might still believe that you are right, but that is no different than you believing that fairies exist. It is a fantasy and delusion that you hold against me. Simply unsupported by the facts and the context of what was written.

        I find your argument “No, KD, I don’t realize that any of my responses make me sound delusional since they do not. The only source that says that they make me sound delusional is you, someone who cannot support his claims,” quite hilarious. You might be wondering why…

        Because Vel, you are the only source that says I am sexist and you cannot support your claim. You really don’t understand that I have supported my claim that you are delusional as much as you have supported yours that I am sexist, do you? Yet, somehow you believe that your claim is right and mine is wrong…funny how that works. Might just be denial???

        Simply because you don’t agree with me doesn’t make what you believe true. I really do wonder are my comments are still too mysterious and intricate for Vel to understand them or whether she is beginning to learn something?

        Maybe, just maybe, my effort in putting a little more context into my responses will help Vel understand. I will be moving on to the next paragraph in question unless Vel has more objections. I do want to try and keep everything focused as we will be returning to her original post at some point and may revisit some of my comments on topics like pornography and research on homosexuality, should be an enjoyable time.

      • Ah, so you find that you must add context to explain your words. Not surprising at all. Let’s see what this “context” is. Again, KD, I see that you cannot support your false claims about me. Shucks, Vel uses evidence and logical reasoning to support her claims, and again KD does not offer the same to support his. I have evidence that you do hold the same beliefs as many conservative Christian males and I have shown it. You have established yourself as a conservative Christian, KD. A conservative Christian is one that has problems with homosexuals, women, other people’s interpretation of the bible, etc. Here’s definition of conservative: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society. Do you believe in this position or not?

        I have shown evidence of your own words to support my claim that you are a conservative Christian male. Unlike your false claims, I have not simply used my beliefs. I know what conservative Christian males often claim to be the truth. You have also lied again when you have claimed I have not “actually take the time to ask questions or understand “why”” you have made the claims you have. It seems that again you are trying to avoid responsibility for what you have written. I have asked for evidence why your claims should be taken for the truth, asking for the “why”, and you, KD, have consistently refused to provide that evidence. Let me remind you, you have said that you are intentionally ignoring my requests. That was your choice, not mine. You may tell me what you actually believe and you have when you have made claims like porn is harmful, women need to avoid it because it’ll make them be too liberal sexually, etc. And I will consider it and address it if I find your beliefs wrong.

        It’s cute to watch you again make more false claims about me. You are lying when you claim that I have twisted what you have said. How can I have done that when I have quoted you directly and given links to what you have said so anyone can see the context involved? You are using a false claim to avoid having to support your claims. You are indeed sexist, treating one sex different than the other for baseless reasons, when you say that women should spend time with their husbands, that they should have kids to be happy, that women can’t possibly think for themselves and will do whatever KD thinks porn tells them to do. I have asked you to provide evidence that I am wrong, and you are unable to provide it. You also have tried again to claim that I somehow think that I throw the ball, I’ll always get a strike. That is false since I do not think that, more baseless claims from you that you cannot or will not support. It seems that, six months on, you cannot.

        Golly, I said I don’t respect sexists. Yep, I have no respect for people like you who have said ““In case you were still wondering, I’m ignoring all of you requests. And suggesting you spend more time with your husband. Maybe have a few kids. Enjoy life and the beautiful mess we live in. Understand that we are all broken people and it’s okay not to be perfect. And learn that people can believe in God and not do harm. (They can even be religious or have religion).” To avoid a discussion. You are the one who chose to tell me to spend time with my husband and have children. You could have said that I should spend more time on my hobbies, my cats, etc but you didn’t. You mentioned husband and children, exactly what a conservative Christian male has used when not wanting to treat a woman as an equal. I have repeatedly quoted you directly, KD, and thus have not “twisted” what you have mean, since *anyone* can read exactly what you have said. You question my use of “tend to” when speaking of your words saying that I should spend time with my husband and ‘maybe have a few kids”. In my blog, one can see that I spend the vast bulk of my time with my husband. This shows that your first assumption is wrong, but that it is understandable if you assume that I am a woman who doesn’t spend time with my husband or doesn’t spend time in the “right” way, again something that a conservative Christian tends to assume. Then you added that I should “maybe have a few kids” and indicate that this is what is required to “enjoy life”. You assume I do not enjoy life as I have it, again something else that is very typical for a conservative Christian to think. Spending time with and tending to can have two different meanings, but they can have the same meaning if by spending time with, you mean doing what a woman “should” do for her husband.

        Everyone knows what you exactly said, KD, because I have quoted you directly. You can requite yourself but it’s not different that what I have done. You have yet to show that I have twisted your words or that I am a liar. I’m still waiting for evidence of your claims, KD, and you have refused repeatedly to give it, telling me that it’s there if I were just “intelligent” enough to see it. That’s the typical response of someone who has no evidence at all, only baseless claims and personal attacks. Since you have not given any evidence, there is nothing to indicate that I am a hypocrite when I say that I discriminate against liars like you, KD. And yes, KD, I have supported my claims with evidence, with your own words. I’m sorry if you think you can wish them away.

        The bible does say that women are only here to have children, Genesis says this. Paul says this (1 Cor 7 is one example upon many in that book alone, 1 Timothy is another great bit). Jesus says that women do not have the same rights as men. Straight on question, KD: Do you agree with the bible? If you don’t, I’m happy for you because you have rejected old nonsense. It does show that you pick and choose what you want your bible to really say.

        You say that I have not represented what you “actually believe”. Okay, I’ll ask you more direct questions so you can tell me exactly what you believe:

        Do you believe that women are equal to men and should not follow the bible’s claim that they should never teach men and that they must only ask questions of the men in charge of them?
        Do you believe that women can only be saved through childbirth as Paul claims?
        Do you believe that women are more susceptible then men to the supposed influence of pornography and that they shouldn’t be able to do whatever they want for sex and orgasims?
        Do you believe that women must be rescued from sex work without consideration of what they want?
        Do you believe that women should have children and should concern themselves entirely with their husbands?
        Do you believe that the pains of childbirth are some magical punishment for women from your god?

        Now, I’m going to guess that you will refuse to answer because the answers will put your claims in jeopardy. You will claim that I will “twist” your answers when you have no evidence I have ever done so as your excuse.

        You ask if I can show that you have conservative Christian views. You think that others “misuse” the bible, sure that your views are the only right ones, just like conservative Christians do. I added the adjective conservative to my description of you to show that I know that some Christians don’t agree with you. For instance, you have indicated that you find homosexuality wrong. Most, if not all, liberal Christians have no problem with it. Most, if not all, conservative Christians have problems with it. You have claimed that there is research supporting your claims about “sexual stages” but cannot provide it and get indignant if I mention the nonsense that conservative Christians claim as research as a possible source of your claims. One can see all of your own words on this here: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-a-christian-commenter-comes-slinking-back-and-a-question-why-believe-one-and-not-the-others/#comment-2849 You repeat the same things I have heard repeatedly from conservative Christians as your own views. That certainly seems to indicate that you agree with them and are a conservative Christian. You left a ministry that you did not agree with, sure that your own version was the right one. This isn’t uncommon at all in conservative Christian circles since we see them breaking off of standard sects because someone isn’t “Doing It Right”, and conservative independent churches are all over the place. Do liberal independent churches spring up? I’m sure that they do, but they are in the vast minority to the conservative ones. You cite conservative Christians as good sources. You read their writings. And I’m not to think you are a conservative Christian? All of the evidence I have presented is objective, courtesy of you. Your actions are not subjective at all, they are what you have done. You may present evidence the other way if you can, KD.

        Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your wife has the context of knowing you directly and believing as you do. If she does not find them sexist, that is her prerogative because she does have more experience with you and she should have much more evidence than I do. I have evidence that indicates that calling you a sexist is accurate. Again, I could be wrong but the evidence does not indicate that. I find your words to me sexist and women I have shown them to also find them sexist, women who are not Christians and who are both liberal and conservative politically. At best, KD, your wife’s opinion is no more accurate than mine and just as supposedly “subjective”, a word you love to toss around. I’ve asked you before, do you understand how someone could find them sexist knowing what Christianity teaches? As it stands, you seem to not grasp this. I hope you do now. You also cannot show that you did not influence your wife in her choice and I have stated the evidence that says you very likely did, since she would have known your approximate earnings. You may not have influenced her but that is not the way to bet in this circumstance. You are trying to equate the buying of a ring to the circumstances that lead to my conclusion that no gods exist. That is rather amusing, what an interesting “twist”. I am not making the argument that “if I asked another woman she would see your side and agree with you”. Nope, KD, that’s a nice assumption but no, I was asking to see what she would say, or at worst, what you would say she said. It does not surprise me at all that she would agree with you. She believes like you do, yes? She could indeed be sexist, since women can be that as well as men. Or she could know something I don’t or at least several other possibilities. If I was interacting with her, I’d also pay
        attention to her other words and actions to determine what I thought about her beliefs.

        I also didn’t say I found it hard to believe with no evidence that your wife didn’t make her decision without influence from you. I cited the reasonsn why one can assume that there was influence. Can you tell me how you think my husband influenced me?

        I have asked you for evidence of your claims about pornography and you have avoided given it. Your comments on pornography are as follows: ““I also believe you made a comment about porn not being harmful. For someone who is opposed to lies and sexism this is a strange stance. As porn lies/misrepresents sex and beauty. It is highly sexist as it presents women as sexual objects and promotes that women “must” be more liberal sexually to have orgasmic sex. The argument seems that because it’s an individuals choice and a form of entertainment that it cannot be viewed as wrong or harmful. It’s about a step above prostitution and two steps above human sex trafficking if you ask me and just as harmful to society.”

        Right here we have you only mentioning women in regards to pornography. You claim that it somehow “promotes that women “must” be more liberal sexually to have orgasmic sex. Hmm, I read porn and don’t see any “musts” in it at all, to assume women see this is false. You say that pornography “presents women as sexual objects”. Only women, KD? No, it doesn’t. You have yet to even explain what the heck you mean by being “more liberal sexually”. Does this mean that porn shouldn’t mention anything other than the missionary position? That porn shouldn’t have women as an audience at all? That women shouldn’t want orgasmic sex? That women shouldn’t want anything but the missionary position or whatever their husbands want?

        You are lying again when you claim “You want to know the number one reason I haven’t responded to any number of your requests…because you don’t listen and would have only used what was said to make arguments against them to support your subjective and closed-minded beliefs about religion and theists.” Yep, that good ol’ claim that theists often use when their arguments are countered. I listen to you carefully, KD, and that will not make me agree with you. I listen to you and find errors in your claims. If I can use your claims against you, that means your arguments are not very good and can be used in that way. You seem to think that if I “actually listened to you” I’d agree with you and that simply is not the case. It’s a great way to excuse your failures and ignore that they do fail. It’s not your fault, it’s everyone else’s.

        Ah, and more claims of how subjective and close minded I am. And of course no evidence of this other than I don’t agree with you. My there must be a worldfull of people who are “subjective and close minded” because they don’t agree with KD.

        I have re-read our conversation several times, KD and again your claims are not supported. It’s very nice to see you again trying to scare me away from making “yet another counterargument as to why KD is wrong” and I am right. I’ll show I’m right if I am, KD, and your attempts at bullying don’t work. Oh my, if I show you are wrong I’m magically not open-minded or objective. “. Or if realize that you are about to make yet another counterargument as to why KD is wrong and Vel is right, you do realize that these actions and beliefs show that you are not open-minded or objective, right?“

        Hmmm so we now have that the only way that Vel can be considered open-minded and objective is to agree with KD and not show him wrong. Thank you for that. What an excellent quote. No, KD, I don’t realize that agreeing with you makes people open minded and objective. There is no reason to believe that at all.

        And you suggest that I ask questions! I have, KD, repeatedly and hmmm, who was it that said that they didn’t want to answer such questions and requests? You.
        Why yes, KD, I know that thinking one can do something and actually doing it are separate things. Please do show me where I only “think” I can do something and that I have not done it. Evidence please to show me that I have not used logical thinking and evidence. I have used your own quotes, your own actions, etc. I have shown my train of thought on why I consider you a conservative Christian. I have asked questions repeatedly for you to provide evidence of your claims about pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, etc. You have refused to present these and have offered excuse after excuse. I do hope you answer my questions above to determine if you are a sexist. I have no problem in rescinding that claim and apologizing if I have evidence to the contrary. I think those questions will clear the air on this issue. You have claimed that I am delusional but have not presented any evidence, of any type, that this claim is true. We have no evidence supporting the “why” I should be considered delusional. I have called you a sexist and presented evidence that shows the why that I find you to be sexist.

        I don’t believe in fairies, incidentally. But you bring up a good point, one should demand evidence, yes? That’s what I have been doing and why I am an atheist, because your god is as imaginary as those fairies and your possible sexism might be. You see, without evidence or with counter evidence, there is a reason not to believe, and you have shown that you understand that. I’m glad we’ve gotten that far.

        Simply because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I am wrong. Your comments are not mysterious and intricate at all, KD. I’m guessing you hope they are so you can always deny that they mean what they appear to mean. It’s also nice to see you again try to impugn my intelligence. Always good to see more personal attacks from someone who evidently has nothing else.

        Now, I do wonder, mostly because I am getting bored, why are you still here since you said: “Here answer me one question that will determine my presence here: Are you still trying to win an argument? Simple yes or no will do. If you say “yes,” I will bid farewell. If you say “no,” I might stick around and share my thoughts. You might even get the “reasons” I’ve chosen not to show you evidence or get me to copy links to why I believe you’ve done as I’ve claimed.” And “Vel, this counter argument is not worth a dignified response.”

        Tsk, seems like someone is wanting to win an argument but doesn’t want to actually support his claims! 

      • Do you believe that women are equal to men and should not follow the bible’s claim that they should never teach men and that they must only ask questions of the men in charge of them?

        This is a loaded question. I do believe that women are equal to men. But I do not agree with how you have interpreted where you state that women “should never teach men and that they must only ask questions of men in charge of them.” If you read the context of the Bible it is not a command from God but what Paul practices. It is not a requirement of being a Christian to not allow women to teach or exercise authority over men. In order to understand Paul’s comments rather than write them off as sexist, you must understand the historical and cultural practices and the original language being used not the English translation. I have not done an extensive study on the passage so I will not render how I interpret or understand the message or practice Paul is conveying.

        So what I see with your question and with what you believe the “Bible claims” is false. While some “conservative Christian males” use this practice, not “all” conservative Christian males do (that is if I do in fact meet the requirements of being a “conservative Christian male”). As you have claimed that I practice this based on “your evidence and logic,” you neglect that you have no actual evidence to support you claim that I adhere to the practice you have claimed, just your opinionated views on “conservative Christian males” and your twisted interpretation of what I stated. All of this is shown with your attempts to fit me into a box that you have designed. The reason Vel, I did not tell you to spend time on your hobbies or with your cats is that was not part of our conversation but family (as you mentioned your ardent love for your husband on more than one occasion and you mentioned your views on having children) was. As for enjoying this beautiful mess we call life, it is not suggesting that you “don’t enjoy life,” you have simply understood it to mean that. As enjoying life could be enjoying your hobbies or cats or gardening or whatever brings you joy.

        While you ask questions, you do not ask questions to understand what is being said. Vel, if I had responded to your questions, would you have listened to understand or would you have attacked my views based on what you believe them to have said?

        Do you believe that women can only be saved through childbirth as Paul claims?

        No. Paul is using what was stated in Genesis 3:16. You can see this in context looking at 1 Timothy 2:13-14. I haven’t looked at the original Greek or what other Bible commentators state but I do not take this to mean “salvation” if that is what you are implying as salvation is through Christ not through child birth. Again, understanding historical, cultural, and the original language would help in understanding what Paul is trying to convey.

        Do you believe that women are more susceptible then men to the supposed influence of pornography and that they shouldn’t be able to do whatever they want for sex and orgasims?

        Again, slightly loaded. I do not believe women are “more susceptible than men.” I believe they are influenced like men but in a different way. I’ll bring up your comment that men believe the “true” stories of the women in Penthouse (I did find it funny that your comment was directed as if I read Penthouse…I took it as a slip up on your part and chose not to use it against you). As you can see that you believe the stories in Penthouse to be lies to give back stories that men “want to hear” about the women they are fantasizing about…it’s a good literature example of how porn lies.

        What I believe is that people (women and men) are free within the bounds of marriage to enjoy sex in whatever way they desire to express, so long as it does not involve partners other than their spouse.

        If women or men choose to explore sex outside of marriage (as singles or with extra-marital partners) they are free to do so, but I do not think it is a wise practice nor is it something that I would choose to do myself. In high school, I did not hold my current beliefs and was more liberal in my views on expressing sexuality or pornography.

        If you want to understand where my comments about pornography come, there is research out there on how porn lies. But it was mainly similar in how magazines lie with photo editing. In main stream pornography even the models/actors/actresses do not look like they do on page or in film. There is additional research and I apologize for not providing a link for you to review but you seem adept at using Google.

        Do you believe that women must be rescued from sex work without consideration of what they want?

        Not sure I entirely understand you question. I will refrain from answering it until you can provide more context of what you are getting at.

        Do you believe that women should have children and should concern themselves entirely with their husbands?

        Slightly loaded again. Yes, I believe women should have children, but only if that is what they desire. I do not remember if you had made the comment that you had no desire to have children before or after I made the comment to “maybe have a few kids.” If it was before I apologize. But I’m fairly certain it was after I mad the comment that you mentioned this fact.

        As for women should concern themselves entirely with their husbands? No. I believe spouses should spend time with one another as it is beneficial to their marriage relationship. But I also believe women should spend time doing things they enjoy doing that do not involve their husband.

        I hold the same belief for men towards their wives. That men should concern themselves with spending time with their wives to enrich their marriage.

        The question I have for you Vel is what would happen to a marriage if spouses did not spend time together or concern themselves about their spouse? Do you think that marriage would last or that the couple will remain ardently in love with the other?

        Do you believe that the pains of childbirth are some magical punishment for women from your god?

        For this one I have a question for you. Vel, is it logically possible that women could give birth without intense childbirth pain?

        Vel, my views on homosexuality are not as you interpreted them. If you look carefully, I have not stated “how” I view homosexuality. This again was an assumption you have made about me. I merely questioned what you believed and why you believe it based on possible research you have reviewed. You also in your response made the assumption that I have not reviewed the same research that you had. You again misrepresent who I am. I am well aware of the research that you provided for a possible correlation between embryonic development in males and homosexuality. What I am concerned in regards to this research is that it doesn’t answer all of the questions.

        Like, what of only child males who are homosexual. Or what of large families of male children where none are homosexual. Why do we not see the same evidence in the female population? Or why do we not see an inverse effect with the female population? What roles are attributed to the youngest male child after birth in each families setting? Was there any type of bullying or feminizing by the older brothers towards the younger brothers? Etc.

        What you have provided is a possible and plausible correlation to homosexual behavior found in the male population. It is not evidence that homosexual preference is determined before birth.

        Please do show where I have “stated that homosexuality is wrong.” And no, I have not claimed there is research supporting “sexual stages,” again another misinterpretation on your part. I stated that there may already be research out there similar to what I referred to as “sexual stages.” But that my statement was not as you were claiming it to be.

        The ministry I left was not because of differing views regarding Christianity. It was for other differences. Again, you misrepresent what is actually being said to fit your argument. If anything, the ministry held more conservative views than I do.

        Vel, you do not have “evidence” that shows me sexist. You have your opinions. Of which are faulty. And you hold on to the belief that I am sexist in light of reason and evidence to the contrary. This is the definition of a delusion.

        You have shown that you know what some Christians teach. It is not what all “Christianity” teaches. This is why you misrepresent Christianity. You choose to negatively represent a particular religion “Christianity” and you do so with only using negative examples that you find as “evidence against Christianity as a whole.” This is cherry picking Vel and a straw man argument. You only represent a part, not the whole, much like how you have argued that “not all atheists believe what I have claimed.”

        What you don’t seem to understand is that you do not see how my comments ARE NOT as you claim them to be. I did answer your question. I see exactly how you have interpreted them to be. But do you understand how you have misinterpreted them?

        You have many misunderstandings of why I am here and what I believe. I am still here to avoid further misrepresentations. In a sense, to clear the air. This is rather difficult as you continue to want to argue rather than trying to understand what I am saying.

        And no this is not avoiding responsibility of my actions or words. And I am not claiming or blaming you for something that you have not actually done. You don’t seem to understand this fact. Yes, I could have done more to support my claims against you but my not doing so does not mean there is “no evidence” or that I can not support what I’ve stated, like you have believed.

      • Wow, you’ve declared that asking you if you believe what your bible says is a “loaded” question. Now what makes it “loaded”, KD? It should be quite simple, do you or don’t you believe what your bible directly says? As happens when a Christian is asked about the bible, we get the claim that I have interpreted this bible wrongly and only the Christian, you KD, has the right interpretation. Of course, we have no evidence that you have the right interpretation and that simply reading what the bible says is wrong. Indeed, other Christians disagree with your claims, KD and are sure that the Bible says what it means. Let me guess, you will again insist that you are not claiming your interpretation is right, against all evidence to the contrary.

        Paul claims that his god has told him what to practice, KD. Can you show that Paul is wrong? Paul claims that all he says is exactly what Christians should practice. 2 Corinthians 11, 2 Cor 12, and “15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. “ – 1 Cor 4. Seems like Paul is saying what ever he does is approved by Jesus and God. Unsurprisingly, you use a typical Christian claim that it’s only Paul who did this, much as other Christians claim that what Paul said was only meant for the specific churches he was addressing not theirs, except when what Paul said is what they agree with. No women priests, but heck, we can ignore the part about cutting our hair. Paul does not say that he is only following cultural and historical practices, he says this is what God wants, and not just then, forever. I am amused to see you use the “but it’s culture and history” excuse when you want to ignore what your bible says is God’s desires. Your god suddenly becomes beholden to humans, not humans to this god. It’s the same argument used to excuse why your god approves of slavery and never says anything against it. It’s also great to see you claim that all translators are wrong and KD is right, when translators often claim that it was their god that helped them. Can you show differently, KD? I can by knowing that your god doesn’t exist. You have to explain why you think you are right and they are wrong because you both cite your god. It’s great to say you haven’t actually studied Paul’s words but you somehow know that I’m wrong and “false”. Just lovely.

        And I have provided evidence, KD. I do love how you think you can put your head in a hole and say it’s not there. But as the old saying goes, you can show a horse evidence but you can’t force him to acknowledge it. Oh well, what you acknowledge isn’t required for something to exist.

        Our conversation was about family so that’s why you mentioned family? That doesn’t seem to be the case, KD. You can look above your original post here: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/#comment-2426 and see how many times we have family mentioned. Not many, we have me ask about your daughter and you making a video to see how “human” I am. Seems that the evidence does not agree with your claims…again. You have said that I should “enjoy life”, phrased as a command where it assumes I do not enjoy life. If I said “Throw the ball.” It again works as a command for something that should be done but hasn’t been done yet. That’s how grammar and comprehension work, KD.

        You again lie when you claim that I don’t ask the “right” questions, KD. That’s hilarious. I have asked questions to understand what is being said and you simply don’t like them so they magically become something else so you can ignore them. And more claims that I don’t listen and therefore I don’t understand you since I disagree with you. If you responded to my questions with false or erroneous statements, of course I would have shown them to be wrong. Again, we have you trying to scare me into not disagreeing with you by claiming that doing so is wrong.

        While you ask questions, you do not ask questions to understand what is being said. Vel, if I had responded to your questions, would you have listened to understand or would you have attacked my views based on what you believe them to have said?

        Again, you don’t agree with Paul, a man who said what he says is what God wants and what women need to be saved. You of course say I am wrong but admit that you have done no research on the subject. So, KD, how do you known the context? The context of 1 Tim 2 is that Paul is telling Timothy that Paul knows how God wants people to pray and act when they gather together. Paul says that women should be silent and then he gives reasons why by quoting Genesis. I don’t care if you take anything to mean “salvation”, I care what the translators say it means. Now, if you want to claim that the translators can’t be trusted, by all means do so. This reminds me of the common Christian claim that interpretations can be ignored at their desire since no one can be sure that anything except the “original manuscripts of the bible” can be considered inerrant. Alas, there is no reason to think that there “original” manuscripts of the bible were any different. We know that the manuscripts change and the idea of an inviolate magical “original” is silly. Please do tell me what historical, cultural and original language clues tell me that Paul didn’t mean directly that women are saved through childbirth. But you can’t, can you since you have no idea what might be out there by your own admission? More vague claims and hoping that shit will stick to the wall. Now, if you go out to some nice site like biblegateway.com, you can compare translations. Seems that they certainly agree on what they think Paul is saying.

        Oh and another accusation of a “loaded” question. Nope, no loading at all, just referring to what you have claimed to be true. Do you believe in what you said, KD, or not? What are these “different ways” women are influenced? I do think that women think differently than men in some circumstances, but I am wondering what you think the differences are> And aw, you chose to not *use* me mentioning Penthouse. Could have used Playboy, could have used Juggs, could have used lots of magazines. In my experience, most men have read skin magazine once in their lives. The stories in Penthouse are indeed lies, stories that have no evidence that they happened and that aggrandize one of the participants. Sound familiar? You have still to show how porn is just a few steps below sexual slavery and prostitution.

        You said that women were being told they *must* be more liberal sexually to have organisms. I asked if you could tell me what that means and why is was bad. From your response we see that you think sex should be limited to marriage and to only two people a man and a woman. Quite a conservative Christian position. You accept that people can be sexually active outside of marriage but you don’t think it is a “wise practice”. You didn’t always believe as you do now.

        Everyone knows that porn lies, KD. So do advertisements for joining the military, floor cleaners, makeup, etc. What you claimed was that porn was always harmful. That is the position you need to support.

        KD, do you believe that women must be removed from sex work, be it prostitution, porn, etc without consideration of what *they* want? If they had no other means of supporting themselves or their family, or if they just liked it, should women, and men for that matter, not be allowed to work in the sex industry?

        And more with the accusations of “loaded” questions. Your bible says that women are only to have children and concern themselves entirely with their husbands. You of course will say that it doesn’t but will be unable to show how it doesn’t other than you don’t agree. I am asking if you believe what your bible is universally translated as saying. If you do not believe that and believe that women should only have kids if that is what they desire, then that is great. It is not what your bible says, but it is a welcome viewpoint. Per your bible again, bearing children is the *only* way that women can be saved, per Paul. I think it’s silly too, for it shows ignorance about human procreation and that some people simply can’t have children. This would make sense that this book is written by less educated people, but not if it is written/inspired by an omniscient god. If you don’t believe that about the bible either, great. But again, it shows a picking and choosing of what you believe as a Christian.

        If a marriage happened and the spouses did not spend time together it, it would be the choice of the people involved. I would find it a little silly myself. Some marriages aren’t for love at all, indeed, we see in the bible that marriage is not for love but for property rights and furthering the heritable line. Marriage for love is a recent idea.
        Again, KD, do you believe that the pains of childbirth are some kind of magical punishment from your god? That’s what your bible says directly. I think it’s a “just so” story made up like many of the other stories in the bible and your god’s curse has no more truth to it than the supposed resurrection. I will answer your question if I think it is logically possible that women could give birth without intense childbirth pain. Yep, I do. In fact it happens all of the time with anesthesia, a human invention. Other animals don’t seem to have pain, and the amount of pain varies from woman to woman (so are some women more “cursed” than others?”. Pain is evidently not necessary. At the moment, it seems that the reason that human females have such pain is that our brain case has changed faster than a woman’s vaginal opening. We need human intervention to have many births thanks to that, with episiotomies, drugs, etc. To make birth painless, I can postulate ways that could happen. The pubic symphysis could get softer for instance. Your argument that somehow it is “logical” that birth causes pain seems to be no more than a variation of the common Christian apologetic that this has to be the best of all possible worlds, assuming their god couldn’t do any better. It’s a shame that this god is so impotent that a puny human can out-think it.

        You have claimed that certain research said certain things about homosexuality. You have not presented this research but you seem to think it is accurate or you would not have mentioned it. So you have stated how you view homosexuality. Trying to claim otherwise is just more of you trying to claim that you never said “exactly” how you view it. So, tell me, KD, how do you view homosexuality? Do you believe it is a choice? Do you believe that homosexuals should be put to death (OT) or are worthy of death (NT)? Do you believe that they are damned to hell? The research about possible genetic components also says that it is likely only part of the equation. If we don’t see the same thing in females, then there would be another factor to consider one that we might not know about yet. If large families of sons don’t have a son who is homosexual, then there is likely another factor influencing things. Oh and bullying and “feminizing”. How do you think these things work, KD in supposedly making people homosexual? You also claimed that people went though sexual phases as they grow. Any evidence that this is the case or is it only an outmoded psychological model? And the genetic evidence is indeed evidence for homosexuality being genetic. There is a correlation shown and this supports cause and effect. That’s what evidence is, KD.

        I said that you indicated that homosexuality is wrong, KD. Again, it seems that you want to play the TrueChristian game that if you didn’t say it exactly, then you magically did not give your opinion. You have claimed that you somehow chose to be heterosexual. How, KD? You have claimed that there were sexual stages right here, KD: “I guess when I state stages of sexual development, I’m mostly referring to environmental or social factors that are involved during our psycho-sexual stages of development.” https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-a-christian-commenter-comes-slinking-back-and-a-question-why-believe-one-and-not-the-others/#comment-2849 I asked for evidence of this and you cannot provide it. It is just more baseless claims from a Christian who admits that he doesn’t bother to do any research to see if his beliefs about things are supported by reality. I do note that you claim that you are not saying that you are referring to research linking homosexuality to abuse and that one of the people you claim to admire their writings, has exactly that assumption on their questionnaire when it comes to prayer requests. You may not agree with them but the similarities of ideas is notable.

        What were those “other reasons” why you left a ministry, KD? I ask because you took a great risk in leaving a job when you had no other, per your own story. It seems odd that there would be anything else except disagreements in belief and practice that would drive someone away from his dream job.

        And again, KD, I do have evidence that you are sexist. You have said what you have said. You are not as sexist as I had thought for which I apologize thinking you were a raving twit, but until I see your last answers to my questions, I still reserve my response.

        I do know what Christianity teaches. I’ve read the bible and that is what Christianity teaches, right? All of it is inspired/written by your god, right? It’s supposedly a book on how to be a Christian, right? I also know that Christians pick and choose what they want to believe that their god “really” meant. So you are part of the “some Christians” who disagree with the other “some Christians”, and there is no reason to think any of you have any truth. What you claim “Christianity” really teaches is not what another Christian will claim that Christianity really teaches. I have no more reason to believe that you known what it really teaches than someone else, KD. It is you claiming that your version is correct, something that you repeatedly claim you don’t do, and repeatedly do. What you claim is “negative” is just the parts of Christianity that you don’t like, and what other Christians do like. You cannot show what Christianity is as a whole since you Christians don’t agree on what Christianity is. I have no problem in showing that disfunctionality of your religion. It is not cherry picking since I have no problem in showing how all of you are hypocrites and cherry pickers par excellence. For a religion that claims to be the truth, funny on how many “parts” it has and no whole. And KD, all atheists agree on is that there is no reason to believe in god/s.

        Your comments are what you have written. You claim that I have misinterpreted them just like you claim that all interpreters who don’t agree with you have misinterpreted the bible. It’s not surprising that you would claim the same about me when you don’t like the results you get from what you say. You have claimed that you were intentionally ignoring my questions and you have claimed that unless I would agree with you, you would leave. It does get tedious when you now come hurrying back when you realize that your threats make no difference to me, KD. And you again claim I only want to argue and not try to understand what you are saying. That’s one more lie, KD. I have understood what you have been saying and you try and try again to convince me that I must agree with you to be considered intelligent, human, etc. You have blamed me repeatedly for why you can’t answer, why you have avoided my questions, etc, by claiming that poor KD’s truth will be twisted if he dares utter it to Vel. You have yet to show I have twisted your words, KD, all I have seen is that I can only be right if I agree with you.

        Oooh, you could have done more to support your claims. Nice to claim this long after the fact, and shucks you claim that there is so much evidence out there and how you are right but funny how I can’t find it nor can you. Yes, KD, you offer the same claims that any person who makes baseless claims makes when confronted with the falseness of their words: “I could have done more to support my claims against you but my not doing so does not mean there is “no evidence” or that I can not support what I’ve stated, like you have believed.” It’s just the same old excuse of a TrueChristian, where they must claim hat there is mysterious evidence that would vindicate them but it’s the mean ol’ atheist who would never accept it so why should the poor theist offer the evidence. Yes, KD, at this point, it does mean that there is no evidence and that you cannot support what you have claimed. Just like the poor folks who have claimed that there was no moon landing, that Queen Elizabeth 2 is a lizard, that the Holocaust didn’t happen, that non-Caucasians are less smart than Caucasians, etc. You are one in a very long line of people who can’t provide evidence of their claims and whine that they really do have it, if anyone would just believe them.

      • Not worth my time to explain to you all the issues with your this response.

        Have a good day Vel. Keep believing in your non-sense.

      • Issues? Like the issue that I have directly asked you if you believe your bible as it is written? 🙂

        Yep, just as I expected. You can’t provide evidence of your false and baseless claims so you are leaving and using the excuse that it is “not worth your time”. Seems like we’ve heard this before, KD, that you don’t have time to answer. That’s been tens of thousands of words ago, KD. Shucks, more false claim of “all of the issues” with my response but again, nothing to support that at all. Since November, I have had the same responses from you, KD, claims of how wrong I am but nothing to show that this is the case. No evidence of the logical fallacies that you claimed I used. Nothing to show that your god exists, nothing to show that miracles you claim are true. Nothing to show that I have lied as you have claimed.

        I do wonder how long this will last, KD, considering you’ve said you are leaving at least twice before. It’s so fun to see a Christian claiming again and again that he has no time to respond but then writes huge posts making more and more false and baseless claims. Thank you, KD. You have done a lovely job in showing that there is a good reason to find TrueChristians of your type to be very predictable in what they claim and in what they do. I will address the rest of your posts here so that they are not considered unanswered and thus somehow “true” by someone like you.

      • Vel, I am just honoring your request. You stated you were getting bored with my presence, your continued responses don’t seem to match your claim. But I thought you would welcome my departure. It also seems to allow you the convenience to believe you’ve won the argument. So this is a double win for you. This raving twit no longer boring you AND you get to believe you’ve won an argument.

        As always, have a good day Vel. And keep believing in your nonsense.

      • ah, so your excuse now is that I made a request. Sorry, KD, I didn’t request you to leave. I said I was bored. That isn’t a request that you leave, no matter how you try to lie again. I do hope you understand someone can be bored and still find it necessary to rebut false claims made. I’ll be here always to demonstrate your lies and your refusal to provide evidence you claim you have.

        Oh and KD, I said you weren’t the raving twit I thought you were and apologized.

        One more lie on your part. No, KD, I don’t believe I won. I believe you have failed to support your claims. You have been caught in lie after lie and you have yet to provide this evidence you have repeatedly claimed you have that would show how great and true your arguments have been. Let me ask you, KD, would you believe anyone if they said they were right, but they were a demonstrable liar *and* consistently refused to provide evidence to support their claims? Would you believe a Muslim who said that they had evidence that Solomon built the Temple with the help of demons but could not provide evidence of this? A Wicca who said that their goddess healed stage 4 brain cancer? Or would you question their claim and ask for evidence? If they refused to provide this evidence because they claimed you wouldn’t accept it and that they didn’t have time to provide it, would you accept that without question? I don’t care about your answers. They are for you to consider.

        No one is responsible for what you have done except you.

        Incidentally, it’s hysterical that you posted *again* after one more attempt at a dramatic exit.

      • Vel, you must consider that I continue to return for the same reasons you claim you continue to comment after my “dramatic exits.”

        I am curious as to what you believe I’ve claimed I have evidence of that I haven’t supported…are you going back to my claims that you’ve committed logical fallacies were you kept accusing me of baseless claims and lies? Oh, yes, where I was making baseless claims and not supporting it with evidence because you kept trying to shift the burden of proof and did not want to support your claims/arguments with the evidence you were using against religion? Yeah, I was mimicking you not fully supporting your claims with the evidence you were referring to. Get it now?

        Or trying to state I’ve claimed something I have not. Please do share.

        One thing for you to consider regarding my returns is: If this was a face to face conversation, I’d say gotta go and then your response would be “but wait I’m not done talking with you.” Or If it were a phone conversation and I hung up, it’d be like you calling me back. Would you expect me to not answer the phone when you call?

        Yes, you stated that you were bored and then asked “Why are you still here?” Now either you truly were curious or you asked rhetorically that you don’t understand why I would still be here implying that my presence had become a nuisance. This of course is taking the context of the paragraph in which you stated both that you were bored and wondered why I was still present. But as always, you choose to only take part of what is said to create an argument against something I have said or done.

        It’s also hilarious when I ask questions just for you to consider but you find it necessary to answer them but then you turn around and are like “I don’t care about your answers. They are for you to consider.” Seems you are copying me know.

        As for the raving twit. Seems you did have a preconceived notion about me after all. You will likely state it was only after I made comments that you took as sexist. But given the context of your earliest comments I’d venture to say that you felt that way from the start. Now, the difference between my questioning your intelligence and you believing me to be a raving twit is that yours is a prejudice against me, most likely because I am a theist and quite possibly because I am a male. There is also some to suggest that it’s because I don’t agree with you and your claims. Mine however, is an on going effort to determine the claims that you have made about yourself. You presumed it was because you don’t agree with me and that is simply another lie you are believing about me. All I hear from you is, “KD I really am very intelligent if you would just believe me…” I love irony.

        Just as I am responsible for my comments and actions, you are responsible for yours. You of course believe everything you have said is logical and true, or are you going to start admitting the truth that you know you’ve committed logical fallacies and have been lying (for the sake of argument).

      • Hmmm, now where would I get the idea that you claimed you have evidence and been unable to give it e.g. “I am curious as to what you believe I’ve claimed I have evidence of that I haven’t supported”? Yes, I am indeed going back to your lies about the logical fallacies I have supposedly made. Where are those fallacies, KD? You said that you wouldn’t show me them because I should be able to find them if I were intelligent enough. Still haven’t seen them and still am quite intelligent. It’s great to see you claim that I was shifting the burden of proof. Now, we do have your own words where you acknowledge that the person making the claim has the burden of proof: ““You must show that what you are claiming is true and that your argument is logically sound. You must prove that you have done as you claim, the burden is solely on you.” Huh, it seems that this only applies to me and not you, how not surprising.

        Here’s the quotes from you where you have claimed evidence for what you’ve claimed and refused to present it.

        “You don’t seem to realize that my not defending my claims made it convenient for you to believe the lie you wanted to believe about our conversation: a fictitious KD and a perfectly logical/right Vel. But it doesn’t mean that because it was convenient that it is true.”

        “Here answer me one question that will determine my presence here: Are you still trying to win an argument? Simple yes or no will do. If you say “yes,” I will bid farewell. If you say “no,” I might stick around and share my thoughts. You might even get the “reasons” I’ve chosen not to show you evidence or get me to copy links to why I believe you’ve done as I’ve claimed.”
        That one is the best since it also has your claims of what will keep you here and what won’t.

        “You have stumbled upon something profound. For reasons unknown to you I have chosen not to show you the evidence. You should ponder that, not entirely sure why the reasons are “unknown” as I’ve explained a number of them. You simply have refused to listen and been rather argumentative regarding them. Seems you’ve decided to believe in your nonsense that “there is no evidence of my claims.” I wonder if that has played a role in my not providing you evidence? To allow you to find it for yourself, the truth in our conversation, rather than you believing in nonsense? But again, let’s hear your argument/excuse against this comment???”

        “You’ve made extremely poor observations, provided poor arguments, displayed poor logic, been irrational in holding to your beliefs about the “evidence,” and been insulting towards me. And yet, if I don’t “show” you where you have done this you will continue to believe in your nonsense? Really does make one wonder why they would keep the evidence from you? Go on, use your “baseless claims” and “liar” arguments all you want, it doesn’t change the truth, just allows you to hold onto the lie you’d prefer to believe!”

        It’s also cute to watch you claim this “You can believe what you want to believe, but don’t claim to be “very intelligent” or logical or that you use evidence that supports your claim when you do not. Like I said before, there is no evidence that the things you have claimed are in fact true.” When I have given evidence. You do know what evidence means, don’t you? Ah well, like science, evidence doesn’t care if you believe in it to be evidence for a situation you don’t like. It’s even better when I see you moving the goalposts again by now stating that I have to “fully supporting” my claims, which allows you to ignore any evidence given since it can’t fulfill a vague calim of “fully”. Here’s the quote “Yeah, I was mimicking you not fully supporting your claims with the evidence you were referring to” Nothing would be fully for you, KD. I do indeed “get it”, KD.
        If this was a face to face conversation, if you said ““Here answer me one question that will determine my presence here: Are you still trying to win an argument? Simple yes or no will do. If you say “yes,” I will bid farewell. If you say “no,” I might stick around and share my thoughts. You might even get the “reasons” I’ve chosen not to show you evidence or get me to copy links to why I believe you’ve done as I’ve claimed.” I would expect not to see you again e.g expect you not to answer the phone or care if I said “but wait, I’m not finished talking to you.” This is not a phone or a face to face conversation, KD. This is WordPress. You come here to know if I have responded and to respond. So, again I see one more analogy of yours fail. No one cares if you comment on my blog or if you don’t, KD, including me. You are one in very large number of TrueChristians who make the same failed claims. I refute all such nonsense nonsense so no one can claim that an atheist couldn’t answer them. I am also amused that again you try to scare me into not countering your claims.
        Depending on my mood, my question “why are you still here?” has been both rhetorical and curious. You claimed that if I didn’t say what you wanted me to say, you’d leave. I didn’t give you the answer you wanted, thus taking away what appeared to be the primary reason for you to stay as claimed by yourself. You evidently have other reasons, one that seems to be “winning” the argument since you *still* claim I’m wrong. So, if you didn’t want to talk, yes, I would expect you to not answer the phone. You claimed you did not want to, and now you have reversed that claim. Again, KD, I can be very bored and still have a responsibility to refute your nonsense and will still do so. I can also point out your vain attempts to convince me not to refute your claims.

        You have asked me questions so I answer them. I do like that you evidently don’t want to know the answers, but only want me to “consider them”. It seems that you don’t actually want an answer to be shown because that would again show you to be wrong. I did say that I didn’t care about your answers. That doesn’t mean you can’t answer if you want to, KD. I might not care but answer away if you feel like it. You see, I’m not afraid of your answers. Now, please do proceed to give the answer to my questions. Or will I enjoy watching you again falsely claim that you don’t have time to do so or that you simply won’t?

        No, KD, no preconceived notion at all. Your own words created what I thought of you. And golly, KD predicted something right! Why yes, KD, I am saying that it was your own actions that indicated you were a sexist. You have claimed that “given the context of your earliest comments” you would venture that I felt that way from the start. Oh really? Then please do give me that context you think you see. What comments are these that you are referring to? Or again, will you refuse to show me evidence, taking refuge in your usual excuses?
        You still have not shown me to be unintelligent, KD. No quotes, no references. Your only argument is that I don’t agree with you and can’t find the evidence you claim is in existence but cannot show. I can claim a purple polkadotted wombat that doesn’t need to breathe is scampering around on Triton, a moon of Neptune, but unless I can show evidence, there is no reason to believe me *or* to assume that those who can’t find evidence of such a thing are unintelligent.

        It’s great to watch you try to claim that I have said something like: ““KD I really am very intelligent if you would just believe me…” Please do show where I have said anything like that, KD. Alas, for you, I have presented evidence as you requested. I have not asked you to simply believe a baseless statement. I have cited evidence and evidence is like science, it doesn’t require you to believe it to still be evidence. You might love irony but it doesn’t work if the person didn’t say what you’ve claimed. If I haven’t said believe me with no evidence, there is nothing ironic to be found. Now, it could be ironic if you didn’t really mean that I said to believe you without evidence. That would be classic irony, using words to convey the opposite meaning of their literal definitions.

        I am indeed responsible for my comments and actions. I never have said I wasn’t. I have shown that my claims are logical and true. You have not been able to refute them, only claiming that they aren’t true and if I were intelligent I’d see that. No counter evidence presented by you, no evidence to show your positive statements true, nothing.
        This is such a grand quote: “You of course believe everything you have said is logical and true, or are you going to start admitting the truth that you know you’ve committed logical fallacies and have been lying (for the sake of argument).”

        Why should I “start admitting the truth” when you have nothing to support your claims, KD? Where is the evidence that supports your supposed “truth:? I know I have not committed any logical fallacies, KD. None appear in my posts. I know this because I wrote them and I know what logical fallacies are. I have not lied in my posts because I can support my statements with objective facts, e.g. your comments, scientific discoveries, etc. Now here is where you post your evidence for your claims, KD. I’ve been asking for this evidence for months. Your excuses on why you have not posted it are: that you do not have time, that I somehow can show my intelligence by finding this evidence for you, that you “might” post it if I give you the answer you want. As usual, nothing has changed.

        Well, one thing has changed, I do have a new TrueChristian making claims with no evidence. I have shown him the counter evidence to his charges. I wonder if he’ll come back or still wallow in his willful ignorance.

      • Thank you for clarifying your argument. However, I fail to see how it does not fit the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

        The form again is:

        1. All Z is B
        2. Y is B
        3. Therefore Y is Z

        Vel’s argument:

        1. Anything wrong is illogical/irrational
        2. Religions are illogical/irrational
        3. Therefore Religions are wrong

        Hmm…that’s just like saying the following:

        1. Anything wrong is illogical/irrational
        2. Atheists are illogical/irrational
        3. Therefore atheists are wrong.

        In case Vel wants to argue that this isn’t her argument let’s look at it another way.

        1. Everything that is illogical/irrational is wrong.
        2. Some things Religions teach are illogical/irrational
        3. Therefore all Religions are wrong.

        This fits the following form related to the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
        1. All Z is B
        2. Some Y is Z
        3. Therefore, all Y is B

        Again, we could use the same logic to state the following:

        1. Everything that is illogical/irrational is wrong
        2. Somethings atheist believe are illogical/irrational
        3. Therefore all atheists are wrong

        I do wonder if this is enough evidence for Vel to realize that she has committed a logical fallacy.

        As for her example of the belief that god will heal a child is “harmful because the child suffers.” I find her use of this argument ignorant and callous. She must not personally know a child who suffers from a terminal illness; otherwise you would expect her to have more sense than to use this example.

        But beside the subjective view I have on her example, we can look at it logically and see that her argument fails.
        Vel, apparently believes that the child’s suffering is a direct result of the parents belief that god will heal their child and choice not to seek medical treatment. I hope she understands why this is an illogical argument.

        What she has failed to realize in her argument is that whether the parents seek medical treatment or not, the child will suffer. Now, it may be considered harmful if the child dies and the child’s death could have possibly been prevented if the parents sought medical attention. But this is neither evidence that supports her argument nor a guarantee that medical treatment would have prevented the child from dying/suffering.

        What we have from Vel is an appeal to emotion. It’s the presumption that all suffering is inherently bad. This is not true. Suffering is natural, it can be good or bad. If your appendix bursts you need to have doctors operate on it. You will suffer the effects of surgery and recovery but you will no longer suffer from the burst appendix. The same is with broken bones that need to be reset. You must endure the suffering caused by the resetting of the bone in order to allow it to heal correctly. So as Vel hopefully can see, that her argument that “It is harmful because the child will suffer,” is no more than an emotive appeal and is not actual logic we can hope that she stops using such a poor example.

        Finally, as Vel claims that if something does not exist it is illogical/irrational. I guess she would have believed that the light bulb would have been illogical/irrational before Edison invented it. Or the telephone before Bell invented it. Or smart phones and tablets before people like Steve Jobs innovated them. Or perhaps Vel finds it illogical/irrational to believe in things like World Peace or ending World Hunger, as those things do not exist in reality.

        I will go into what her post and arguments actually do support in a little while. But for now as I have listened extensively to what Vel believes and have understood all of her arguments and claims, I hope that she will actually listen and seek understanding of what this theist has to say about why her post/comments are illogical and why they misrepresent all religions.

      • I’ll be back in a bit but I did want to ask you again to show how things that are illogical and irrational aren’t wrong.

        and no KD, I do not claim “that if something does not exist it is illogical/irrational.” That’s very funny but again a lie. A lightbulb can exists with the laws of physics as we have. It has always been that way, so no, I wouldn’t have believed that the light bulb would have been irrational/illogical before Edison invented it. Ah, again we see KD’s “deductive” reasoning in action, still coming to wrong conclusions. Now, I can say it is illogical/irrational to believe in a god since there are no evidence that they exist. This also holds true for fairies, ghosts, reptiloid aliens being Queen Elizabeth II, etc.

        This will be fun. I do love these typing exercises when you offer such typical Christian excuses.

      • Vel to quote you directly you said:

        “Believing in things that do not exist is illogical and irrational because it has nothing to do with reality.”

        But that is beside the point. As my comments were made expecting that you would answer in the way you have.

        You do realize that your claim is logically fallible. You assume that what we know today you would have also believed or known before the light bulb was invented. That means if you lived on Earth 1 million years ago you would have believed the light bulb existed or could potentially exist. As you did not live 1 million years ago you have no frame of reference of what you would have believed or known.

        Vel, I hope you realize this is what you have claimed from my example. So I’ll ask it this way Vel. If you lived 1 million years ago on Earth and someone claimed that a light bulb could exist would you have believed that person to be logical and rational, even in they could not explain the laws of physics to you and simply believed that such an invention could exist?

        And no Vel, they are not “typical Christian excuses.” They are logical explanations of the fallacies you have committed. Just because you call something an “excuse” does not make it one. You have simply used loaded language as an attempt to persuade anyone who reads this that what is being made is an excuse. You do not actually evaluate what is being said. If you are as logical as you claim to be you would see this.

        Vel, you do understand that when you claim gods do not exist you must show evidence to the contrary of their supposed existence and not simply state that there is “no evidence” therefore it is illogical/irrational to believe gods exist. You must actually show why or how it is illogical/irrational to believe certain gods exist.

        After all this time you still don’t have a clue on half of what I’ve been trying to explain to you.

      • Shucks, KD, more personal insults. Thank you so much!

        Why yes, I did say ““Believing in things that do not exist is illogical and irrational because it has nothing to do with reality.” So you do not agree with this? I would assume not since this would make your religion rather pointless. It’s always nice see you try to avoid answering a question or a point by saying “But that’s beside the point”. No, it isn’t, KD. It is exactly the point, you make claims about things that have no evidence of existing and you seem to wish me to find you rational and logical. There is no reason to do so. I find you no more rational or logical than someone who believes in fairies, Santa and Rudolph, Queen Elizabeth 2 being an alien, Muslims, etc.

        You keep claiming that my claims are logically fallible but can’t show why. No, KD, you lie again. I have not said that I would believe in light bulbs if I lived a million years ago. It is the continuous observation and experimentation of the human race that has led to the invention of the light bulb, and that comes from not believing that light comes from magic e.g. the nonsense in Genesis. Your premises are based in lies, KD and thus your claims of logical fallacies fails again. It’s cute but it is boring to see you make the same false claims again and again. It seems that you think that a human from a million years ago couldn’t have understood what we know now. We know that humans controlled fire at least 1.5 million years ago. Where is your evidence that someone could not have been taught to understand? It seems like the common Christian claim that somehow the Israelites could not have understood germ theory and use that as an excuse on why their god kept them so ignorant.

        If I lived a million years ago and someone could show me evidence that a light bulb could work, I would have no problem in believing it could work. You claim gods exist, but you cannot show that this is the case. I do not believe you, a million years ago or now. And please tell me why someone couldn’t explain the laws of physics to me.
        What I have cited as typical Christian excuses are indeed typical Christian excuses, KD. You have again not shown that I have committed any logical fallacies, KD. Lots of claims I have but those claims fail every time and I have shown why they do. You claim that I magically couldn’t understand, but there is no reason to think I could not. You have yet to show that believing in things that do not exist is logical and rational, KD. Let’s look at a typical Christian excuse aka apologetic argument, the ontological argument. This is where Christians claims that if one can imagine something, then it must exist. It fails since humans can imagine all sorts of things that don’t exist and can’t exist as far as we know the laws of physics. There is no reason to think magic works; it is highly improbably though not impossible. It is also highly improbably that your god created the universe last Wednesday and we only think we remember beyond that. And no, KD, I would not be magically logical if and only if I would agree with you as you insist.

        KD, I understand that when I claim that gods do not exist, I only have to point to the fact that there is no evidence that they do. I can point out that all of the claims of the Christian god are false e.g. no flood, no resurrection, no miracles, no healing, no ten plagues, no fulfilled prophecies, etc. It is only when theists invent a vague god that has no attributes that it becomes even slightly difficult to reason that no gods exist. The likelyhood of even this vague god is still improbable, though not impossible. Every god claimed by man has attributes and claims of events and they can be shown to be false. Now, do you worship this vague god or do you worship the Christian god as described in the bible, KD? I can do the same to claims of fairies. There is no evidence and no reason to believe in them either. Do you believe in fairies, KD? Do you believe if you clap your hands Tinkerbell will live? Why or why not?

        So, I have just shown why and how it is illogical and irrational to believe in your god, KD. One more false claim of yours down.

      • Well, KD, I’m sorry but I am unable to explain it any differently. I’m sorry if you cannot understand.

        Your version of the argument:
        1. Anything wrong is illogical/irrational
        2. Atheists are illogical/irrational
        3. Therefore atheists are wrong.

        Had the failure of a false premise because you have failed to show that atheists are illogical/irrational. You seem to be unable to realize that logical tautologies need valid premises to be valid logical arguments. Just because you can write something in a formula doesn’t make it true if the basic claims aren’t true. In that I have shown evidence that belief in the irrational and illogical (that which has no evidence that it exists) is wrong, e.g. religions are wrong, the same argument can work for me. You are of course welcome to show that atheists are illogical and irrational if you can. And KD, not agreeing with you is not evidence that someone is illogical and irrational. You must show that with facts, not assumptions on your part. For instance, you could say that atheists are illogical and irrational because they do not believe in God and then present evidence for your god. I do foresee a problem in this since all of the claims about your god’s existence are either the same as every other religion, or they lack evidence to support the claim.

        All that religions teach, that are unique to them, is irrational and illogical. For example, Christianity says that their savior died and was resurrected. There is no reason to believe this claim. Islam teaches that martyrs for the faith get rewarded in heaven. Hinduism, some forms of Wicca, claim reincarnation. All are baseless claims and have no reason to be accepted as true. The things that they teach that are not unique to them, tolerance, love, etc, can be true but cannot be shown to be only part of that particular religion and can be shown to be based on simply being human.

        Again, you need to prove your premises, KD. Show that everything that illogical/irrational isn’t wrong. Show that some religions are rational and logical and then tell me which religions are illogical/irrational and why. Then we can go from there. Can you? I would very much like you to show me that Christianity is rational/logical and hmmm, Hinduism isn’t. Again, KD, logical arguments are dependent on true premises. Logical fallacies are shown when the claimant cannot show that their premises and conclusions are true.

        I am so happy that you decided to try to address the problem of suffering. Few things are as good to watch a Christian make excuses for his god. You claim that I am somehow “ignorant and callous” to use this argument against religion and to show how harmful it is. I am sure you are indignant that I can use such an easy example to show how harmful religion is. You claim that I can’t possibly know a child suffering from a terminal illness or I wouldn’t use such an argument. Huh? If I argue against parents killing their children from their belief in the promise of their religion to heal anyone who is asked to be healed, this somehow impacts a child dying of a terminal illness? How does this work, KD, mentioning a terminal ill child when we are talking about how people’s faith lead them to kill their children by denying them medical treatment? What does one have to do with the other, KD, or are you just using a random appeal to emotion, invoking a dying child, to shift attention from the very real and very horrible actions of parents under the influence of religion? The only interpretation I can come up with is entirely unflattering to you so you may offer your reasoning before I will mention it.

        I am quite happy to see you lie about me again when you attempt to quote me out of context (“As for her example of the belief that god will heal a child is “harmful because the child suffers.””), it shows that you are just one more TrueChristian who tries to quote-mine when you are failing. What I said was “Religions are useless if they provide no benefit and religions do not provide any benefits that are uniquely from it. Believing in things that do not exist is illogical and irrational because it has nothing to do with reality. Let me give an example, if I believe that some god will heal my child, that is illogical and irrational because that will not happen, no matter how hard I might wish it would. It is harmful because the child will suffer. I wonder, is this enough evidence for you of why believing in gods is irrational and illogical?” The child suffers because their parents are not getting them medical attention and murdering them by allowing them to die from illnesses that are curable. Examples of this: a list of more: http://www.katu.com/news/investigators/Fallen-followers-Investigation-finds-10-more-dead-children-of-faith-healers-231050911.html and here just recently in Pennsylvania: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/02/pa_couple_face_prison_after_so.html

        If a child is dying of a terminal illness, one would expect that their parents, if religious and not trusting modern medicine, would be praying for a miracle for their child and survive. The child would then have no chance to survive if only divine intervention is expected. If the parents trust modern medicine, theists or not, they would explore every possible treatment. If they are lucky, maybe some new treatment will appear before the child’s death since research is always ongoing.

        Let me point out the case of how religious parents let their child die of a urinary tract infection. I don’t know if you have had one of those but they are very painful. So, if parents refuse to allow their child to have modern medicine cure the urinary tract infection because of their religious beliefs, they are intentionally allowing their child to suffer pain because of their religious beliefs. You claim that this is an illogical argument. You are welcome to show how you think it is. I can show cause, religious based belief disallowing a cure, and effect, pain. What can you show? If you refused to allow your daughter to have modern medicine treat her appendicitis based on your religious belief, you would be allowing your daughter to suffer pain needlessly because of your religious belief. You see, KD, simply claiming something is based on logic doesn’t work if it isn’t.

        No, KD, the child will not continue to suffer whether the parents seek medical treatment or not. The child will have suffered if the parents get medical attention but will stop when they are cured. If the parents choose not to have medical attention given to their child, the child will continue to suffer until they die, or if they are lucky, recover on their own. I do enjoy to watch a TrueChristian claim this: “Now, it may be considered harmful if the child dies and the child’s death could have possibly been prevented if the parents sought medical attention. “ Wow. So, it may not be considered harmful by you if a child dies. Would you consider it not harmful if your daughter died, KD?

        Modern medicine will give a child a chance, and yes some treatments are not painless for instance chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but they give a chance that the child will stop suffering. Believing that a magical being will heal the child will guarantee that the child will continue to suffer. I have not offered the claim that medical treatments always work. That is yet one more lie on your part, KD. I have said that medical treatments can work and prayer never does.

        Where is the appeal to emotion that you mention, KD? Where have I invoked an emotion? I have mentioned case after case where parents do kill their children based on their religious beliefs. It’s a fact that they do. You seem to be unfamiliar with the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion is. This is unsurprising. You may educate yourself here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html All suffering is inherently bad. If we could avoid suffering with the application of chemotherapy or surgery, we would, correct? That’s why humans invented anesthesia, analgesic drugs and anti-emetic drugs. We try to eliminate as much suffering as we can.

        The fact that suffering happens and is “natural” (hilarious coming from a Christian), does not mean that is it not bad. This appears to be a Christian trying to make the usual claim that atheists are nothing but nihilists, that we have no morals or no idea of what is bad or good. What fails in your argument, KD, is that theist parents refuse even those techniques and drugs that will cause suffering but will lead to a lack of suffering. There is no lack of suffering in a theist parent’s actions, only the continuation and then death.

        Now, per a common Christian claim, the world is suffering and they want to leave this world as soon as possible for their reward in heaven. To this type of Christian, suffering and death is a release and what they want. KD, you claim I misrepresent your beliefs, so here is a time you tell me what you believe. Do you think it is best to suffer and die to get to heaven sooner? Or do you think it is best to seek out medical attention so you can stop suffering and continue living and put off your reward?

        Again, we come to your failure so far to show that believing in something that does not exist is not irrational/illogical. People believe in fairies: is this a logical and rational belief? Why? You believe in many gods, KD. Is this logical or rational if you have no evidence to support that belief? As I have stated, I would not find the claim of a possibility of a light bulb or a telephone or smart phones or tablets illogical or irrational since I know how the laws of physics manifest in this universe. So, your claim that I would is another false assumption and one more great example of how poorly your deductive reasoning is. I know that ending world hunger is possible though very difficult because I know that we could do it if we wanted to . The same with world peace, it is possible but difficult. This is a hilarious version of a TrueChristian trying to claim that as long as someone can imagine something then it must be real by citing other things that are real. Well, KD, you can imagine a silver tea set around Zeta Reticuli but there is no reason to think one exists. There are reasons to know that ending world hunger could be attained as well as world peace and further technological advancements. There is still no reason or evidence to believe that your gods exist.

        Please do “go into” what you think my post and arguments “actually do support. This will be amusing since, as usual, you have no evidence and still get things wrong, like your deductions and your ideas about logical fallacies. Again, you claim that I have not listened to you and that I don’t understand you and that I don’t seek understanding with no evidence of this at all, other than whining that I have to be wrong since I don’t agree with you and your faulty claims. How fun! Please do continue to try to show how you are right and other theists are wrong, KD and how I “misrepresent all religions”.

        Incidentally, I do enjoy watching you perform for an audience that doesn’t exist, something that you claimed was so bad when I used the same technique as a rhetorical device.

      • I figured you’d enjoy that I was mimicking your technique. Vel, you have not demonstrated understanding of anything I have said. You have failed to prove your claim that you have. You have also not demonstrated that you are “very intelligent” or logical. You have not shown how the “evidence” you claim supports and makes your claims true. There is no evidence to support your claims.

        It has nothing to do with agreeing with me and everything to do with understanding. You have not shown that you understand anything discussed in our conversation, there again is no evidence that you have.

        And no, these are not personal attacks. They are observations based off of no evidence of what you have claimed.

        Have a nice day.

      • I do enjoy watching you try to copy me. It seems that this shows that I am indeed worth copying. So, how does that work with me supposedly being unintelligent and illogical?

        Again, what you claim is not born out by the evidence presented. It’s sweet that you now claim that I have now magically have not understood *anything* in our discussion. Hmmm, and didn’t you say we weren’t having a conversation or discussion? 🙂

        Goody, more claims that I am not “very intelligent” or “logical” since I have don’t agree with you.

        And “And no, these are not personal attacks. They are observations based off of no evidence of what you have claimed.”

        Okay then. 😉

      • No not really worth copying. I was using mimicking as a rhetoric device, you only seem to catch on when I blatantly copy you.

        Yes, my claim is based off of the evidence as presented in or conversation of the things discussed. You seem to misunderstand that I have been opposed to arguing over these things with you to redundancy. I welcome conversation and rationale discussion but that does not seem the case with you per the evidence to date. And no magic required for you to understand what we’ve covered in our conversation. You haven’t understood the basis of above argument yet, you are still focusing too narrowly in trying to find things to attack. The whole comment mimicked arguments you’ve been using all along. I’ve done this a lot since November with comments and posts and you still haven’t caught on. I even tried helping you along the way by blatantly copying some of the writing style you use. I’ve never questioned your writing ability or style other than using rhetoric devices that can be taken offensively; so in that much you may be worth copying. But presuming this relates to anything other than writing would be an invalid argument.

        Vel, your intelligence and logical reasoning have nothing to do with you “agreeing” with me. You’ve presumed this to create an argument that “this must be the only reason” I would question them. But as usual, your argument does not prove true.

        Please if you believe the evidence shows you very intelligent and logical it should be easy for you to support you claims. I expect citations and your explanation as to why or how your citation supports your claim. Or am I to simply “believe you because you have insisted this is the case?” Despite my not finding any evidence after reviewing our conversation.

        Do you get it yet?

      • Nice to see you back after hmmm, about 30 minutes?

        Ah, so after copying me, you claim that I was “not really worth copying”. Funny that you take so much time to do something “not really worth” the time. I do feel sorry for anyone who must deal with you regularly, KD.

        You have yet to present evidence for claims, KD. You have said that you have evidence but you have offered excuse after excuse on why you don’t present it. You claim that I have used an argument of silence, claiming that you supposedly have evidence and that makes my argument invalid. That’s just hilarious since an argument from silence is a valid argument and your refusal to provide your evidence shows that you most likely have none. As I have asked you in another post, would you believe anyone who made the same arguments you do, that people should believe them because they have evidence they won’t show anyone?

        Rational discussion is what one has when offering evidence, and not refusing to do so as you have done consistently, KD. For someone who claims that they have been ever so opposed to arguing “these things” with me, you have done so every time you post. Again, your actions speak much louder than your words, KD.
        You keep insisting that I am too unintelligent to understand you, KD, but I have responded to every point you have tried to make. This makes your claim a lie. Your comment has brought up all of the arguments *you* have used before, so your claim that it was mimicking also fails. Excuse after excuse offered to cover up your own failures. Now, we get to see you claim that you’ve been doing this since we started, and funny how that was never claimed by you in the other times I have pointed out your attempts to copy me. Alas, KD, I’ve done that before and you never offered this excuse until now. It’s great to watch you gin up new excuses.

        I do love the false claim that you’ve “even tried helping” me by “blatantly copying some of the writing style” that I use. Hmmm, so how does that work, KD? Tell me how blatantly copying me is supposed to “help” me? And how does that work when I have repeatedly noted that you were copying me? The evidence indicates that I have “caught on” many times and you have attempted to lie I have not.

        You have repeatedly claimed that I am not intelligent and do not use logical reasoning; and you have said that the reason I am not intelligent is that I supposedly cannot follow this discussion, which indicates that you find I am unintelligent because I do not agree with you. Even here in this post, you assume I do not “get it yet”, which shows again that you think I am unintelligent and cannot understand your arguments. I do understand them, KD, and I find them wrong. Now, again, KD, show me where I have shown that I am not intelligent and that I have not used logical reasoning. Show me where I have used the logical fallacies that you have claimed and have still not been able to provide evidence of. You claim that my intelligence and reasoning have nothing to do with me agreeing with you, but again you have claimed I am unintelligent and illogical. How have you determined this, KD, other than saying that if I only understood the discussion I would not show you that you are wrong? Let me quote you again “Yes, my claim is based off of the evidence as presented in or conversation of the things discussed. You seem to misunderstand that I have been opposed to arguing over these things with you to redundancy. I welcome conversation and rationale discussion but that does not seem the case with you per the evidence to date.”

        And I do love this next part, where you demand that I show evidence I am very intelligent and logical. I present ever post I have written to you, KD. It’s so cute that you demand citations and explanations too! I guess that it’s fine for you to ask for these things but not for me (and golly, KD, I do see you mimicking again, so I guess I am intelligent enough to noticed that too as I have so many times before). Shucks. Well, let’s look at my reviews of logical fallacies for an example. If I was not very intelligent, I would not be able to research and comprehend the definitions of logical fallacies and point out when you have used them. I would not be able to discuss the idea of sexual stages of development as an old psychological idea that appears to have little to support it anymore when you mentioned it in relation to homosexuality. I would not understand the research done on the genetic origins of homosexuality if I were not intelligent and logical. I could not have pointed out that your claim of divine intervention in your ring story was a miracle as the word is defined, despite your attempt to deny it. I have noted that the vanity of claiming miracles is unfortunate when this god cannot help people who actually need help.
        Of course, you will simply ignore the evidence as you have before. Alas for you, what I have said is true whether you accept it or not Reality doesn’t care about what KD wants, only what is.

        Why yes, I do get it and I have “gotten it” for a very long time.

      • Ah, so this kind of answers something I asked of you just a moment ago.

        In case you are wondering. I decided to come back and address the comments not directly related to the logic you used in your post. You of course will likely laugh and make some meaningless comment about how I previously said something. But note that for my response I stayed within the grounds I was referring to when I said that I would only address a certain thing.

        You use these arguments, which are similar to your KD is a liar, he said negative things about religion. Pulling something from one comment or post and positing that it implies something that it does not.

        Vel, you realize that an argument from silence is an argument made from the absence of evidence. If you have followed the news recently (as new “evidence” may be found by the time you read this) Malaysia Flight 370 is a good example of argument from silence. There is an absence of evidence regarding what actually happened with the flight. Now most will presume that the plane crashed. But why or what happened is largely unknown. It is even possible that is did not crash at all. But until evidence is link to what happened it is anyone’s guess. You cannot make an argument from the absence of evidence as it could be true or false. In a sense the argument from silence is similar to Schrodinger’s Cat, the argument is both true (alive) and false (dead) at the same time.

        I was trying to help you see what I was doing with my arguments by blatantly copying your writing style. I was working on copying the arguments you were using to show you the logical fallacies you committed.

        Oh, yes. Now a critical review of your supposed intelligence. You notice when I blatantly copy you, you do not notice when I was using satire and irony by copying your arguments with my own version of it and watching you “point out all the logical fallacies I committed” which were the same as the one’s you committed that you could not find on numerous reviews. You have also made claims that some logical fallacies are not logical fallacies because “they are effective” which is unsupported by logical reasoning. You did try and suggest that my comments were Freudian which is probably the closest thing you could come up with in the way I phrased it but not even close to the intended meaning of my thoughts on possible research that could or possibly has been done.

        Regarding the research done on the genetic origins of homosexuality. Do you understand it? Did you consider the questions I asked rhetorically that you answered? Vel, answer me this: The research you provided, does it show a possible direct genetic link to sexual orientation?

        Yes anyone with half a brain can look up a word in the dictionary and understand the words meaning. But you are stating cause and effect. Someone can state there was divine intervention with out claiming it was a miracle. And someone can claim something a miracle without claiming it had divine intervention. Words are used to convey messages, the are not always used in the same sense that they are defined. To use the dictionary definition and not the practical implied definition you take the word out of the context it is being used in.

        I have never “ignored the evidence” or “ran from you questions or requests,” in the sense you claim. Yes, you still seem to think very little of me Vel. You have no one to blame for your ignorant views of others than your own prejudice and discrimination. The thing you are so proud of. Of course, it won’t surprise me when you pick and choose bits and pieces from my comments and create arguments against me trying to make what I’ve said look or sound stupid. Which is the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule. I do wonder if you use some many Red Herring arguments intentionally or if you really don’t realize that you do this…either way you are responsible for committing logical fallacies intentionally and lying about it or you are ignorant to the fact that you do it. Of course you might be delusional and believe that all of your arguments are base on truth and evidence therefore they are not logically fallible. Which in that case the burden lies on you to prove they are true not on anyone else to prove them false.

      • Yep, KD, I’ve noticed that you, like always, want to pick and choose what you answer. It’s so cute when you do this because it shows that you seem to know where you’ll fail. It’s very reminiscent of how pastors and priests avoid certain bits of the bible because they know that they are full of very questionable nonsense and don’t want to open up their “true” faith to questions. It’s much easier to avoid questions than honestly answer all questions. But that is understandable since that appears to b one of the reasons that Christianity has stood for so long, just ignore the problems and keep telling people that they are in danger of eternal torture if they ask questions.

        I do love your lawyering on why you aren’t just a twit who can’t actually do what he claims he will do. No, KD, you said you were leaving unless I would say I agreed with you. No other qualifications mentioned. But please, do keep trying to retcon a written medium. It’s another lovely example of how changing what something “really” means is part and parcel of what a TrueChristian does when it turns out that another claim of “what it really means” fails.

        KD is a liar and KD has said negative things about religion. You have made claims that I have used logical fallacies and have yet to support those claims. You have said that religion is bad. It’s great to see you now claim that this: “I see a lot of people misuse the Bible as a source to preach their message of intolerance (i.e. religion).” Is not a negative comment about religion. The term “i.e.” means “that is”. You have also said that: “I hate that I am prone to religion. Like I said, the answer to religion is Jesus.” So that’s not negative either, hmmm? So, what is a negative comment, KD, in your estimation? The term “negative” means “harmful or bad; not wanted”. Seems that you don’t want to be religious. Seems also that you find religion harmful in that religion is part and parcel a “message of intolerance”.

        And again, you evidently have failed to read the definition of an argument from silence. No, it is not simply an argument made from the absence of evidence. Don’t believe me, then here we go again with the wiki page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean that it isn’t valid.

        There is some evidence for what happened to Flight 370. We do have a large absence of evidence for the details. However, an argument from silence can be valid. In that we have no reason to believe that aliens took it, no evidence for aliens, it is logical to believe that they have not. For you to claim that “anything” could have happened is dependent on the unsupported belief that anything *can* happen. That would require a Seussian universe where there is no logic or cause and effect. One can indeed make arguments from silence and the absence of evidence, KD. I know theists don’t like to admit that the argument from silence and the absence of evidence work because the lack of evidence for your gods is one of the best reasons not to believe in such nonsense, just like there is no evidence for a big man in a red suit that comes down chimneys on December 24. There is no reason to believe that a god exists because none of the claims of its actions can be shown to be true. There is no reason to believe that some god caused reality to “fall” because of the actions of two people eating magic fruit. There is no reason to believe that a god made part of itself a man, required itself killed to correct this “fall” and rose from the dead. There is no reason to believe that Mohammed rode a magical horse to Jerusalem and took dictation from an angel. There is no reason to believe that Auoumbla the primeval cow licked humans out of a ice block.

        It’s so sad that you mention Schrodinger’s Cat and have no idea what the thought experiment is about. It’s unsurprising since so many theists bastardize all sorts of science. The thought experiment is not about an argument from silence. It’s about quantum mechanics and how observation changes outcome. In no “sense” is it similar to the argument from silence. The cat is not alive and dead at the same time; it could be alive or dead depending on quantum event. We do not know if the cat is alive or dead because we cannot know the result of the event until we observe it. If you are going to try to use such references, at least read about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

        You have yet to show me I have committed any logical fallacies. Your new claim that you were somehow trying to show me how wrong I was is a lovely excuse to try to cover the fact that you use logical fallacies in your own arguments. Nope, KD, you used bad arguments all on your own. But golly, let’s just make believe that KD is soooo clever that no one notices when he’s being clever.  It’s rather like believing that Wiley Coyote really meant to get smooshed by a rock when trying to catch the roadrunner. Beep beep zip bang!
        You have yet to show that you “blatanly copied” me, since I have not used the bad arguments you have, KD. I still am waiting for evidence that I have used *any* logical fallacies, that I told *any* lies, etc. I have yet to see any satire and irony and I did point out where you failed in your definition of what irony was. The argument from silence is not necessarily a logical fallacy (link above). It’s so great to see that again you cannot cite anything I have said. No, we only get your vague accusations. That’s even more sweet since you demanded that I give you evidence and I did.

        Hmmm, where did I say that your comments were Freudian? I said that the idea of sexual stages was from Freud. Is that not the case? Hmmm, seems to be the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development And you said this ““I guess when I state stages of sexual development, I’m mostly referring to environmental or social factors that are involved during our psycho-sexual stages of development.” https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-a-christian-commenter-comes-slinking-back-and-a-question-why-believe-one-and-not-the-others/#comment-2849 Which seems to be exactly what Freud said was happening.

        Now, KD, you have claimed that my comments were Freudian slips: “Unless your question was a Freudian slip and you blame him?” https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-a-christian-commenter-comes-slinking-back-and-a-question-why-believe-one-and-not-the-others/#comment-2841

        You ask “Regarding the research done on the genetic origins of homosexuality. Do you understand it? Did you consider the questions I asked rhetorically that you answered?” Why yes, KD, I did understand it. Nice for you to again try to claim I did not. I did consider the questions that you “rhetorically asked” since surprise! I answered them. Now, here we apparently go again when you ask if I understood something that I responded to because you don’t want to believe anyone could have understood and not agreed with you. Yes, KD, the research I provided does show a possible direct link between genetics and sexual orientation. Go back and look at the research I provided. If you do not believe this is the case, cite where in the research it does not say that there is a possible genetic cause of homosexuality.

        Why yes, anyone with half a brain can look up a word in the dictionary and understand the words meaning. A miracle is defined as an event that has had divine intervention: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle . If I say that a miracle occurred and attribute it to a god/magical force, it means exactly the same if I say divine intervention occurred and attribute it to a god/magical force. You claimed that your god intervened and made you pick the right ring. You therefore claimed: “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs”. Someone can indeed say “It was a miracle.” And not have meant that a divine being intervened, because miracle also can mean an unlikely event “an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment”, a later definition that came after the one that attributes events to divine action. You did not do that, KD. Shall I quote you? “I guess God took me seriously…as I was praying I was led to a Jewelry store. I figured I could find out about the 4 C’s of diamonds and get an idea of price of rings. I sat down with the sales woman and she explained what Cut, Color, Clarity, and Carat all meant and gave me pricing on a diamond and ring setting. The whole time I’m praying that God is leading me during this whole process and that as I’m looking at these diamonds and ring settings that He shows me the ring for the woman he desires me to marry.” And “You see, the ring setting she showed me, the cut, color, clarity, and carat of the diamond she desired and described was identical to the ring God led me to buy in the store that day.” So much for your attempts to claim that I am not representing the context of what you claimed: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-a-christian-commenter-comes-slinking-back-and-a-question-why-believe-one-and-not-the-others There is nothing “implied” here other than your god intervened in your choice of ring. I do find it amusing that you seem to be so afraid of me pointing out that you claimed a miracle happened for you. I am guessing that it does point out how arrogant that is when others don’t get miracles for much more important things than a ring and you don’t like that at all.

        You should recall how words again additional meanings, KD, since the word “religion” has done the same thing, and your argument that atheism is a religion is built on that. But you also find religion to mean attitudes, beliefs and practices dependent on a divine being, which shows that atheism isn’t a religion even to you.

        Yes, KD, you have ignored evidence and have run from my questions and requests. I do love how you try to excuse your actions by claiming that you haven’t done so in the “sense” I claim. What sense is that, KD? The sense that you have offered excuses that don’t make sense with your actions? I do indeed think very little of you, KD. Your own actions have guaranteed that. And aw more personal attacks with no evidence. How are my views “ignorant”, KD? Because they dare disagree with yours? Shucks, then darn near the entire world is now magically ignorant. I am still quite proud of the discrimination I have, KD, because it allows me to know right from wrong, helpful from harmful etc. You seem to think pride is so bad but I do note that your god snorts around and shows how prideful it is in what it does (see Job for a lovely bunch of examples).

        And again with the attempts to make me afraid of showing how wrong you are by quoting you. Anyone who wants to can see all of your posts if they think I am quoting out of context. Alas, for you, what I have done is not the appeal to ridicule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule , which, if one reads about it, is making fun of a claim by presenting it falsely as a created strawman, making the real argument seem simplistic and silly. I have not done that, KD. I have certainly made fun of your claims but the problem for you is that I have shown evidence why they are wrong, and I have not changed your arguments. I have quoted you directly, provided links to what you said, etc. Again, you claim I have used a logical fallacy and because of your desperation, you misunderstood the fallacy and lied about me. You also claim red herring arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring . Okay, KD, where have I used those, or are you just throwing more shit at the wall in hopes that something will stick? Again, all we have is you saying evidence exists but again you can’t provide it and more claims about the burden of proof : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof being mine when you have made the positive claims. It’s so lovely that you have shown you understand that it is the person making the claims that has to provide evidence, and that you keep contradicting yourself when you can’t provide that evidence you claim you have.

      • So Vel, you are just willfully ignorant of understanding that when you make an argument that you use to make fun of what I have stated that you demonstrate that you have not understood the message I am trying to convey but have oversimplified my comment to make what I’ve said look silly. So glad you’ve readily admitted that.

        If you are incapable of reviewing our conversation and notice how many times I’ve tried explaining that you have misunderstood my comments and the times when I’ve had to re-explain and re-explain my comments hoping you would eventually understand them and stop misrepresenting what I’ve said, then, yes. I do think very little of your claim of being quite intelligent.

        Each time after I explain my comments you continue to posit that how you’ve interpreted them is still correct when you are actually presenting my comment falsely. I.e., making more appeals to ridicule.

        I will cite above where you mention psycho-sexual stages of development. While my wording, which I can only presume when I mentioned stages of sexual development and pyscho-sexual stages, that you either recalled Freud’s terminology used from the Psychology courses you took in college or you did a google/wikipedia search which likely yielded Freud’s theories. You took this to mean what I used similar wording you took that I was basing my theory off of Freud’s theories (and originally off of some arguments that had been made about sexual abuse at early stages of life leading to homosexuality) to make the message I was trying to convey look silly outdated and inaccurate. You began with an argument that demonstrated you had a inaccurate understanding of my comments. Essentially, you took my comments as you wanted to made an argument based off of what you thought they meant to make fun of them and reduce them to sounding ridiculous without actually trying to understand them. Apparently, you miss this in your rhetoric on a willful and continual basis. But again, you cannot blame me for your faults in understanding my comments and your need to use logical fallacies like appeals to ridicule against me. It is your words and actions that belie you.

      • Oh my, more baseless claims, KD. You have yet to show I have not understood any argument that I have used. I am quite happy to make fun of you, but this does not demonstrate that I do not understand something. Please do show where I have “over simplified” an argument of yours. Or again is this you just hoping that someone will agree with you as long as you make accusations? Here in this little corner of the internet, there is only you and me and you know that I will not accept vague claims from you without evidence. Where have I admitted anything, KD? Please do show the quote that you think I have admitted something. If you can’t, well, then it seems that I’ve never done what you’ve claimed.

        More false claims, KD? Oh yes, the false claims that I can’t possibly have reviewed our conversation since I don’t agree with you. I know you have claimed many many times that I have somehow misunderstood your comments but when I quote you there is nothing that shows I have misunderstood you. I take you at your word, KD, not what you want to retcon your comments to “really” mean. It’s a common enough tactic for a theist, insisting that words don’t really mean what they say when it’s inconvenient to the author. You have said that I was wrong when claiming that all religions are wrong and harmful. You have said that atheism is a religion and failed at demonstrating that. You have said that you have said nothing negative about religion and I have quoted you insisting that religion is something that you don’t want to have and that your Jesus is the remedy for religion. You have claimed I have used logical fallacies and despite my asking for months, you have yet to show that I have, only claiming that if I were intelligent enough I could find these fallacies on my own, that you don’t’ have the time to support your claims. And of course we see that is a false claim because you have plenty of time to write all of these lovely comments.

        But let’s take a look at that last bit, where you claim to not have time to answer my questions, that you are intentionally ignoring my words. Both are quote from you, did you mean them as the words in them indicate they mean? If I am misrepresenting you on those quotes, how am I doing so?

        KD, ridiculing your claims is not the same as presenting them falsely. I can show how they are ridiculous, false and baseless. I have not changed your quotes meanings and I have not presented your comments falsely. Again, I have quoted you directly and I have linked to the original posts so people can see exactly what the context is. By doing so, I cannot have shown your quotes other than they actually are. I have not needed to change your quotes at all, to exaggerate them, to rewrite them, to reorder arguments to come up with strawmen. It’s too bad if you don’t like being shown to be ridiculous. Most don’t, and it is an effective weapon against those who would make false claims.

        You may think what you want of me, that doesn’t mean your thoughts are reflecting reality.

        I quoted you directly when speaking about your claims about stages of sexual development. So, yes, those are indeed your very own words. Now let’s see why I would associate the term with Freud and think you mean Freud’s hypothesis. You have a degree primarily in psychology, yes? No one else has made the claim of sexual stages of development in regards to homosexuality, yes? If not, where did you get your idea of sexual development stages since I know you didn’t invent the concept yourself. I have indeed had some classes in psych, as I have already indicated, so yes, I am familiar with the term and someone who has taken as many psych classes as you have claimed would be too. I have read many Christian bits of nonsense that invoke the hypothesis, and I noted that one of the pastors that you claim to admire makes the same assumptions that Freud did on the form he uses in his church for prayer intervention. You have also made claims that you have made a choice to be heterosexual, which seems to indicate that your claims of stages of sexual development aren’t what you earlier claimed as a reason for homosexuality. You are the one who brought up the claims of sexual development stages, not me, KD. I asked you to explain further on what you meant by sexual development stages and how it relates to homosexuality and you have yet to do so. You have had plenty of time to explain what you supposedly really meant and you have refused, telling me that my questions don’t deserve replies, that you don’t time, that I should find out the answer myself and I can only be considered intelligent if I agree with you. You have been hoist with your own petard.

      • Vel, I am curious about the pastor you are referring to? So please clarify who it is you mean when you keep mentioning it?

        You do realize that it has been your actions and replies that have led me to the reasoning that it is not worth responding to you. It has not been my words that have damned me but your interpretation of them and constant misrepresentation for the sake of your arguments. Yes, I said them and I have not said otherwise. But what I have said has been misrepresented and misinterpreted only by you. I have tried to explain myself and the meaning/intent of what was said but you refuse to acknowledge they mean anything other than what you’ve taken them to mean. So it seems you believe you understand my words and comments better than I do. When the reality is that you have interpreted my words for your convenience of argumentation. Had I know anything I said would be used against me to make fallacious arguments, I wouldn’t have responded to many more of your requests. I had mistaken you to be a decent enough person not to feel the necessity to ridicule someone simply because they don’t agree with you or when they say something that you take to mean one thing when it actually means another.

      • Hmm, should I insist that surely you should be intelligent enough to find it yourself? Nah, I don’t do that. Here it is, from the Frosts at Shiloh Place: http://www.shilohplace.org/page/prayerministry Per your blog you find Mrs. Frost’s book quite important. I am sure you will insist that: 1. You don’t care what they think and/or 2. this is somehow not looking for past traumatic events to explain things. I’ll ask you another clarifying question: do you think homosexuals can be changed to heterosexuals? Do you think homosexuality comes from a traumatic event or the lack of attention from a parent? It seems as though you do think homosexuals can be changed because you have claimed to have made a conscious decision to become a heterosexual, but I would like your clarification.

        I don’t care what has led you to think it is not worth responding to me. You’ve used lots of excuses why you won’t respond. One more won’t make much difference, KD. I’m not surprised.

        Your words have damned you and it’s always great to see you acting like so many politicians who get caught in saying something less then coherent but then “apologizing” by blaming the audience. It’s a time-honored trick, KD. It generally just gets laughed at, because it’s so obvious and so overused.

        You can keep offering excuses, KD, and I will show how they fail. I understand the English language and I have read what you have written. You have made claims that you have refused to support. Still waiting, KD. As I said, you are always welcome here. You seem to forget that this does not mean that your claims will not be countered and shown wrong when they are.

        Again, show me where I have misquoted you or misrepresented you. I still am waiting for quotes directly from me, KD. You now try to claim that I am not a decent person. Nice! You claimed that I wasn’t human before, “” I hoped the video might appeal to you sense of humanity…perhaps I was wrong?”. Your claims are ridiculous and you cannot support them, KD. I’ll ridicule you and show you wrong no matter how much you complain that I’m not being “decent” enough for you. It’s the common cry of the theist who has been found wanting, that the atheist is just being mean when we show evidence that the theist is wrong in their claims. It’s an appeal to emotion, KD. This is where most discussions between atheist and theists end up, an appeal to emotion or plunging off the cliff of solipsism where the theists claims I can’t know that there are no gods, despite the evidence that there are none.

      • Vel, you logic is impeccable.

        Because I listed a book of his as one that I was reading at the time…therefore I am an admirer and agree with all the same things he does?

        That’d be like claiming because someone was reading Mein Kampf that they are an admirer and agree with all the same things as Hitler. It’s wonderful to see your logic (or lack there of) at work.

        Still fishing for me to share what I believe regarding homosexuality I see. I do love the ignorant questions you’ve decided to ask me…

        Oh and having a sense of humanity is not the same as not being human. It may mean that you are perceived as inhumane or indecent but it does not mean you are not viewed as human. Your response, shows your nature towards others. It’s the same way that your ridiculing others, your discrimination, your lack of respect, or your rejection of a sincere apology; all show what type of person you are. Since these are all things that you state you are proud of being, you shouldn’t get in such a tif when someone points them out as being negative.

        I do not think that you are mean or nasty. I’m not easily offended by your critical remarks. I take what is said and evaluate how much truth is in it. I do not simply write off what has been said about me as non-sense or lies to comfort my self-esteem.

        Vel, you have not shown evidence that I am wrong. It is perplexing to me that you still think you have done this. I find your arguments wanting. Yet you continually fail to see this yourself.

      • Ah, there we go. Thanks, KD. So, KD, are you not an admirer of the Frosts if you picked their book to supposedly blog about and found it so very important to do so? Though, I do admit that you have slacked off on that. I guess it wasn’t that important at all. My apologies because I was wrong and you weren’t that interested in the book at all.

        I will ask you again directly: Do you agree that it is traumatic events that cause homosexuality? If not, can you show how people choose to be homosexuals and heterosexuals? You should be able to since you claim you chose to be a heterosexual. I am very interested in this since I do not recall choosing anything of the sort. Or you could be telling another falsehood in order to avoid having to acknowledge that someone knows just as much about psychology as you and pointed out how much your assumptions about sexual stages fails.

        I am “fishing” for your belief about homosexuality since you made claims about it, KD. You have made claims and have not supported them. And this shows again that your later false claims about me not understanding our discussion is false since if I did not understand the discussion I could not point out that you have made baseless claims and have refused to support those claims.

        It’s great to see you now try to backpedal from that lovely claim that I needed be humanized by your little video of your child. Now having a sense of humanity is not the same as being human. So, please do explain how that works, KD. The reason that the term “humnanity” is that is because it assumes that being human requires one to be humane. See that root word?

        I know my response shows my nature toward others. I hold people accountable for their actions and hold them accountable when they tell falsehoods about me and to me. Please do show how that is not human or inhumane. I can see that you might see it as “indecent” because that is a very subjective thing, that what one considers indecent another person doesn’t. I know yo don’t like to be shown to be a liar but until you show evidence for your claims, there is no reason to treat you as anything else, especially when I know that your claims are factually false.

        Again, I have no respect for you, KD, because you have lied about me and to me. You have refused to give evidence that you claim to have and offer excuse after excuse to avoid having to provide what you claim to have. I have no problem ridiculing you for your actions, KD. It is indeed ridiculous to watch yet one more TrueChristian who offers the same sad excuses when they claim to have evidence of their nonsense but then refuses to provide it, just like any conspiracy theorist.

        I also have no problem discriminating against those who are liars, etc. I am quite happy to have the discrimination to question the claims of anyone who tries to tell me something wrong. This includes religions and their followers who make false claims and whose claims cause harm. It also includes political groups, etc. If you have no discrimination, then you have no problem with skinheads, slavers, bigots, etc because you have to claim that their viewpoints are just as valid as yours since you have no way to tell the differences. I am quite happy to be able to do this. Hmmm, now it seems that I am not in a “tif” when someone points out that they are supposedly negative since you have yet to show that they are negative. Claim all you want that discrimination, ridicule, lack of respect of the false, as “negative”. Unless you can show it to be true, it’s meaningless. Just like your other false claims about me and about your religion.

        There is no reason to accept your apology as sincere because it was nothing more than an attempt to claim you had the power all along and that you blamed me for not understanding.

        Hahhaaahhhaa. Oh my, you are “not easily offended by your[my] critical remarks.” Sure, KD. It’s also great to see you again try to lie about me by trying to claim that only you evaluate remarks, evaluate how much “truth” are in them and don’t “simply write off” what has been said. Poor KD, having to lie again to have anything to say. KD, I have written your claims off as nonsense and lies and have shown exactly how they qualify as nonsense and lies. I’m still waiting for your evidence that you have claimed repeatedly to have.

        I have indeed shown evidence you have been wrong. You have claimed that I have used logical fallacies and I have shown what those logical fallacies are and how they work and asked you to show my quotes that used those fallacies that you have brought up. You have claimed that your god provided you a miracle. I got to see you insist that the divine intervention by a god wasn’t a miracle, which is hilarious since that’s exactly how it’s defined. I also showed how your purported miracle didn’t need any magic and asked why you thought you got a miracle and no one else who needs real help, and not in selection of jewelry, gets one. I have shown how religions are wrong because they are indeed illogical and irrational, lacking any evidence for their claims. I have shown that atheism is not a religion, something that you claimed was true. I have shown that you made negative comments about religion when you insisted that you did not. All nicely quoted and links.

        And now you claim you find my arguments wanting. You must, if you are to still believe in the nonsense you claim is true. I do not find my arguments wanting, KD. You have yet to show them in error. And now we’ll get another riff on the “you have to find them wanting if you want me to consider you intelligent.” I do not care what you think of me, KD, nor do I care about your attempts to make me afraid to counter you.

      • Such eloquence! Quoting the great classic of South Park, a perfect choice…

        So, KD, how about telling me how you “understand” our conversation since you feel that yours is so superior to mine? Please do include how I am wrong in my summary.

      • I bet you’d like to know.

        Vel, where did you come up with the false assumption that I felt my understanding of our conversation was “superior” to yours?

        I’ve said no such thing.

      • What a perfect response, KD. It does give me a touch of nostalgia since I haven’t heard that one since I was in elementary school. It’s such a classic, someone who can’t support his claims still having nothing but wanting desperately to pretend he does.

        You have claimed that I have not understood our conversation, KD. To claim this, you must think that you do know what our conversation has “really” meant to say that I am wrong in my understanding. This indicates that you do believe your comprehension is superior to mine.

      • Different…yes. Superior…that depends. You see Vel, you are trying to posit something that doesn’t apply. It’s great to see you whine and mope about that I must think that I am so much better than you, but again that is another false assumption on your part. And what supports my claim. Keep trying!

      • Hah! Oh my, it’s great to watch you, KD. You have claimed that I was wrong and that I have not understood or misunderstood. There is not one peep about you saying that you were only having a different opinion. That would not entail you telling me I am wrong, now would it KD? If you think so, how about showing me how that works in English. Again we get to watch you try to rewrite history in the face of a written medium.

        Let’s see one example of this:
        “Vel, I do love how you feign your understanding of our conversation.”
        Now, what does the word “feign” mean, KD? Ah here it is: “to assert as if true” So, here you are claiming that you know that I am wrong, e.g. that my understanding is not true, that I am somehow “feigning” it. You are saying that your claims are superior, that they have higher quality, in this case truthfulness, than mine. Please do give evidence of this, KD and please do show how this isn’t claiming that you know the truth and I do not. I have asked you to tell me what *you* think the ‘true’ meaning of our conversation is, and as always, you can’t. We get lovely quotes from you like this: “I bet you’d like to know.”

        You have repeatedly claimed that I am not understanding you, but when I ask you for further clarification and evidence that I am misunderstanding your claims or your words, you refuse to provide it. It’s even more fun to watch you claim that you will provide this information at some later date and then never do it, especially when you try to make a dramatic exit. Ah yes, those good times when you insisted that you would only return when I would agree with you or said that you might return to favor me with your enlightenment and then fail to provide it. I do love this written medium.

        I don’t care if you think you are better than me. And no false assumptions on my part, KD. All theists must think this since they are sure that they know some magical mystical secret about the universe and that no one else does. They, of course, have no evidence that their delusions are true at all. I know that belief of superiority is happily not true and just more evidence that theists make up gods in their images. I do get tired of you lying constantly about what you have written. You have said I am wrong about what I have stated. You have been unable to support that claim. And, you have not one time said that you only had a “different” opinion than mine.

        For someone who fancies himself to be an apologist, you certainly have yet to learn you have to support your claims. With your track record so far, the only people who would accept your “I’d bet you’d like to know” technique would be those who already agree with you. Perhaps that is all you want to do, but it is a severe problem if you were to be a pastor for those who were not indoctrinated. To answer a question “I’d bet you’d like to know.” Would be hilarious, even for a youth pastor. Kids often know when they are being lied to and such simplistic attempts to avoid answers will even get them to laugh.

      • Vel, you really don’t get it do you. I’ve told you that you have not understood or misunderstood my comments and posts. Our conversation.

        I know what I’ve said, why I’ve said it, and the intended meaning behind it. It is you who seem to want to re-write history on the recorded medium as there have been numerous occasions where I have explained what I’ve said does not mean what you’ve interpreted or claimed it to say.

        Such is the same with your response here. You are still positing that your understanding of the things I’ve said is right. Or as you would put it; superior. So Vel, are you stating that your understanding of my comments/posts and what the intended meaning of them to say is better than the person who wrote them?

        As that is your argument. That when I tell you that you have misunderstood what I’ve said you are turning around and stating that I am the one who is wrong; that you’ve understood them perfectly and that you have interpreted them correctly. You may also be claiming that I apparently don’t know what I’ve written, why I’ve written it, and the intended meaning of what was written. This seems that you do believe you can read my mind. Or perhaps just your fanciful belief that your logical conclusions of what I’ve said is true, despite the evidence to the contrary that I’ve provided.

        So yes, when I tell you that you’ve misunderstood or have not understood my comments it is because I understand them differently than what you’ve explained them to say. Whose understanding is superior is dependent on what you say: Whose claims have more “truthfulness” to them. Based on our recorded medium, the evidence is plentiful for review.

        You will continue to believe what you’ve said/claimed/understood is more true and thus more superior than what I’ve said/claimed/understood. You’ve wanted me to “show you the evidence by providing direct quotes and what not” but I ask to what avail? To change your mind?

        We’ve seen how long that can take in regards to your claim that I’m sexist or made a sexist remark. You still haven’t fully accepted that you are wrong. It’s great when you accuse me of moving the goal posts when you have such gems as saying that I might not be as sexist as you originally thought (or a raving twit for that matter) but you will continue to hold your position until I answer your remaining questions. Your ignorance is indelible. Also, remember my comments about how closed-minded you are?

        For you to continue to posit the remarks you have made and to continue to consider that your comments and posts are logically sound demonstrates a grave lack of understanding of logical fallacies. You don’t have to agree with me. But not agreeing with me does not make what you say true. My not providing evidence does not make your claims true. My not showing you were you are wrong does not make what you’ve argued true. What is true is true. Truth does not care for what is agreed upon, shown as evident, or can be argued…that’s the great thing about truth. If you are not very intelligent then you are not very intelligent. If I am a not a sexist then I am not a sexist. Get it?

        I care more for understanding things as I care for the truth. Like I said, I am not willfully ignorant. So, I tend to ask questions and keep an open-mind on what is said. Unlike some people I’ve met.

        Oh Vel, nice little personal attack. “For someone who fancies…” You seem to take it that I care whether or not you “agree” with me. Silly Vel, you still don’t get it. The only person it matters to whether you agree with me or not is you. And yes, I am fully aware that as an aspiring apologist the need to support my claims. But the reality is that you also need to learn to support yours. That has been a major point of my presence and what I’ve attempted to converse about. That your arguments/logic/claims lack convincing support to those who do not already agree with you. You have seemingly failed to understand this and I’ve been quite redundant at mentioning it to you.

        I will not be surprised when you still do not get it. Had I came here to persuade you to believe in God then your arguments have merit. As I did not come here to prove to you that God exists, you have misunderstood our conversation. I have come and questioned your claims and beliefs against religion, but we’ve hardly discussed this in any fruitful fashion as you have been dead set on shifting the burden of proof from you showing your comments/arguments true from the onset. And we’ve gone on many other tangents that have distracted us further from having a productive conversation regarding your stance against religion as per your post, verstehen?

      • Well, this is getting off to a wonderful start. Let’s look at your first sentence. “Vel, you really don’t get it do you. I’ve told you that you have not understood or misunderstood my comments and posts. Our conversation.”

        Yep, you have told me that I have not understood your comments *and* misunderstood your comments and posts. Unfortunately, the evidence does not agree with you. I have completely understood your posts and have responded to them in kind. You don’t like the results of that, and have consistently tried to say that you have not said things you have. I have not misrepresented you one single time. I have quoted you directly and have linked to those quotes so anyone who cares can see exactly what you have said in context. I think my favorite instance is when you have claimed you have said nothing negative about religion, when in fact, you have. Shall we look at your very own words again? “I hate that I am prone to religion. Like I said, the answer to religion is Jesus.” Right here on your very own blog: http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/who-do-you-follow/ Now, the term negative means harmful, bad, not wanted, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negative Let me ask you directly, KD, are your words expressing your feelings that religion is “harmful, bad” and “not wanted”? If not, what is it saying? You have said I am wrong about what you said about religion, so here is your change to make it clear in the bounds of English definitions and grammar.

        I have no problem in understanding you, KD. You only want to claim that I do not when I don’t agree with you and/or I point out where you are wrong. I have given evidence that I am right and I have no problem in showing, and stating, that my evidence is superior to your baseless excuses. You see to think that your opinions are equal to facts. They aren’t. I ask you to show me evidence to support your claims that I am wrong, KD. You have not, only being able to insist that I am wrong because I dare not agree with you. I certainly am stating that I understand your posts and that you only try to claim you didn’t mean what you said when you are caught in a lie or in one more baseless assertion. Just like in the claim that you supposedly “never” said anything negative about religion. I am saying that I understand your posts and your intentions for trying to claim my understanding is somehow wrong.

        KD, I have not attempted to rewrite something you have said and misrepresent it as what was “really meant”. You have done that. I have not made the promise that I would present information and then not do it. You have done that. I have not attempted to claim that my posts written in English with English definitions and grammar don’t mean what they directly express. You have done that.

        I am not claiming that you do not know what you have written. I am claiming that you know exactly what you have written and now do not want to admit that you wrote what you did, trying to claim that I am not “interpreting” it correctly. I’ve heard this enough when I see theists insist that someone isn’t interpreting their supposed holy books “correctly” when it is pointed out that the holy books are saying something nasty or wrong in plain text. Saying religion is wrong is saying something negative about religion. Now, if you’d like to pick out someone for me to send your quotes to and ask if they are expressing something negative about religion, I am willing to do that to show you that anyone who reads that will come to the same conclusion that I have. Do you want to do that? Or would that show your claims of “interpretation” are ludicrous?
        You have provided no evidence to the contrary that you did not mean exactly what you wrote, KD. You *have* tried to claim that you didn’t say something that I have quoted and I can show you the quotes in your exact words. I can show them in context to show that you did mean what I have taken you to mean in the context of those quotes. I have asked you to explain how simple English words with common definitions can be magically made to mean something entirely different than what they say. You have yet to do this for me.
        The understanding that is superior is the one that has the evidence to support it. I have your quotes, a dictionary full of definitions, grammar, and context. You only seem to have your assertion that you “never” did x and y, despite everything else that shows you have. Indeed, you are right that recorded medium is plentiful for review. I have plenty of evidence from this source to support my conclusions and I have shown it. You of course claim evidence but refuse to show where this evidence is. .

        I will continue to believe what I know to be true because the evidence supports me, KD. You have nothing to support your claims. That is the case in this current discussion and in your entire religious belief. You offer the same excuse that theists offer when they are asked to show evidence of their beliefs, “You’ve wanted me to “show you the evidence by providing direct quotes and what not” but I ask to what avail? To change your mind?” Yep, the good ol’ “I don’t have to show you the evidence because you’ll just ignore it.” Excuse of a theist who doesn’t actually have any evidence. You are lying about my motivations, that I somehow would ignore evidence, and are trying to hide behind that lie to again avoid presenting evidence for your accusations and claims. I am asking for evidence to see if I should change my mind. If you have it, present it; I will consider it fairly as I consider all of your claims. If it is wanting, I will tell you why as I have all during this conversation. If you again refuse to provide this evidence you claim to have, there is no reason to think you have any evidence at all. You become the boy who cried wolf, whom no one believes even if they are telling the truth. All you have are the usual vague baseless claims of what I have supposedly done and nothing to actually show it.

        Wow, I do love how you equate moving the goalposts with me admitting I was wrong. Glad to see you are as inept as ever with the definitions of logical fallacies and poor argument tricks. Oh yes, and where are those instances where you can show that I have used logical fallacies? Hmmm, I’ve asked many times for you to support your false claims and still nothing. You are still unable to answer questions that will clarify your position, questions that *you* asked me to ask you. It doesn’t surprise me, KD. Everyone who doesn’t want to admit to what they really think will always avoid clarifying questions. They’ll present any excuse not to do so. I have a lovely theist on Mak’s blog who insisted that he might be wrong about his belief and that makes him more open minded than us mean ol’ atheists. I asked him what would make him think he belief was wrong and he replied by hilariously ignoring my questions *and* asking me for *all* of the evidence that shows that atheism is a valid conclusion. You can just smell the desperation there.

        And why yes, I do remember your claims about how close minded I am. I’m still waiting for evidence of this, KD. I’m wanting to see how not accepting everything you say blindly and not agreeing with you is being “close-minded”. I don’t care if you stamp your feet and say you are not a sexist. That’s all you have done. You have not shown that you are not a sexist of at least some degree and you can do that by answering my questions. You seem so afraid to do that. Why, KD? Why are you so afraid to provide evidence *you* have claimed you have?

        Your refusal to provide evidence is indeed evidence that there is something strange going on, KD. You claim I am wrong and I am pleased to see that you admit that you have refused to show me where I am wrong. This also makes your claims suspect, KD. Again, in a court of law, if you came to the judge and said “I know this person committed a crime”, and weren’t able to provide any evidence but “I know he did but I won’t tell you how.” you would be laughed out of court. That’s why I ridicule you, KD. That’s all you deserve with your baseless claims and your outright lies. Truth does care about what can be shown as evident. And your false claim is exactly what one who has no evidence would claim. Suddenly truth doesn’t need evidence to support it.

        I’m not sure whether you are trying to bastardize a good man’s quote or you are again just making nonsense up. Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s quote is: “Good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” It still depends on evidence, KD. We need a way to determine truth and evidence is it. You have not shown that your claims are true in the least. Truth does have to be shown to people who have to be able to agree by finding evidence to support the claim. If you can’t show what you say is true, then we only have your opinion and nothing more, no more believable than moon landing conspiracy theories, other religions, New Age bullshit, etc. You have also not shown that I am “not very intelligent”. As you have stated, the recordable medium does have plenty of evidence in it and all of that evidence does show that I am indeed very intelligent. Happily, being intelligent does not equate with agreeing with KD.

        And now you seem to want to claim that I don’t understand things as long as I disagree with you. Sorry, KD, but because you want to believe in something doesn’t make it the truth. You have shown yourself to be willfully ignorant when it comes to religion, atheism, logical fallacies, etc. You do ask questions and you get answers you don’t like which you decide are untrue. That’s always hilarious when it comes to someone who claims to be open minded and to falsely claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is closed minded.

        So you don’t fancy yourself an apologist? It seems that you do “I aspire to be a writer, theologian, and apologist.” No, I don’t care that you agree with anything, KD, much less me. You have tried to tell me I’m wrong about many things and have of course been unable to show this, with your inability to present evidence of these claims of yours. For someone who claims to be aware of the need to support your claims, it’s great to see things like “For you to continue to posit the remarks you have made and to continue to consider that your comments and posts are logically sound demonstrates a grave lack of understanding of logical fallacies. You don’t have to agree with me. But not agreeing with me does not make what you say true. My not providing evidence does not make your claims true. My not showing you were you are wrong does not make what you’ve argued true. What is true is true. Truth does not care for what is agreed upon, shown as evident, or can be argued…that’s the great thing about truth. If you are not very intelligent then you are not very intelligent. If I am a not a sexist then I am not a sexist. Get it?”

        Yep, here we have the aspiring apologist saying that he doesn’t have to provide evidence of his nonsense. The aspiring apologist lies about people and still doesn’t provide evidence of his claims. He also has no idea what makes something true, because he thinks that everyone must believe him since he believes something is true and doesn’t have to provide evidence. He even says that others have to support their evidence and when they do, he ignores it intentionally, showing again that he is a liar. I have support all of my claims, KD, and thanks to that nifty recording medium, we have plenty of evidence of this.

        I still do get it, KD. You came to my blog to tell me I was wrong about religion and its effects of harm. You tried to claim that atheism was a religion, apparently because you find religion bad and stated so in your blog. You came back to tout your story about how your god must exist since you want to attribute a “miracle” to it, that this god cared so much about you that you picked out a special ring, screw those who need real help like having a crop survive so they don’t starve or a gun jam so some idiot doesn’t shoot them. Or perhaps a person who is going to chop their arms off with a machete will simply drop dead at the invocation of your god. Nope, we get claims of jewelry miracles to try to impress the atheist. Of course, you will say that you didn’t mean that story to prove god. So, again, KD, why did you tell it? What was it supposed to accomplish? Believers tell each other such glurge to affirm how great they are and how right they are. What was your purpose in telling me?

        You have repeatedly accused me of using logical fallacies, lying, misunderstanding and have intentionally refused to show any evidence of these accusations at all. You have tried to claim that your personal version of you religion is the only right one when it comes to other versions, when you have claimed that the various sects of Christianity are wrong and only “religions”. You also tried to claim how similar Catholicism and Presbyterianism is, which still makes me grin because of the utter ignorance of that claim. You did come here to tell me that I was wrong in being an atheist, and I do like to see you show me that my conclusions are right by your constant ignoring of your own supposed holy book and its laws.

        You have not just come to question my beliefs, KD. You said I was *wrong*, which means you think you are right. I have shown my arguments to be valid from the outset. I have cited cause and effect, events and actions. I have never shirked my responsibility of supporting my claims when I make positive claims. I find it great to see you again lie about me, KD. I also am gratified to see you acknowledge that the person who makes the claims needs to show the evidence. This is exactly what you haven’t done and you have admitted it: “My not providing evidence does not make your claims true. My not showing you were you are wrong does not make what you’ve argued true.” You not providing evidence doesn’t make your claims true, KD. It indeed shows them to be very likely false. It’s great to see you doing exactly what you have falsely accused me of doing, shifting the burden of proof to someone else to show your nonsense to be true.

        Finally, I do love how you claim that we haven’t had a productive conversation regarding my original post. I think we have had a very productive conversation and I am guessing you find it “unproductive” since you’ve failed at your claims. It has shown that a theist like you is the best evidence to support my stance that religion causes harm and if it ever did any good, that good is easily provided by other means than the belief that some magical being has told only a few people the “truth”. We have the evidence to see that a theist like you will do their best to make false accusations and then refuse to support those accusations in the evident assumption that everyone must accept what they say as the truth, with no effort on their part.

        Ja, ich verstehe.

        postscript – It’s amusing that you use “verstehen” to ask me if I understand. I do have quite a meaningful understanding of what you are claiming and why you fail to support your claims. It’s not hard to see from another’s point of view, especially if one occupied it oneself at one time. It’s also amusing to think of the concept of verstehen when Christians want to claim that one has to understand their nonsense by the culture that originated it when convenient, e.g. when this god says to do something abhorrent, and as a magical universal truth when they want, e.g. something that they like. It’s the usual magic decoder ring that theists must deploy when making claims that they cannot support. Oh sorry, was that a tangent? Pity. 🙂

      • Ah, more attempts at vague accusations. “Oh Vel”? Oy vey.

        I was considering your nonsense that you don’t have to provide any evidence and that the “truth” is supposedly the “truth” even without it. As always, that’s exactly what someone who has no evidence at all for his claims would say. The facts suddenly become unimportant if you don’t have them.
        Your statements would be a great end to this scenario:

        There is a blog post about the moon. It discusses the geology of the moon, talks about the various moon landings by various countries, etc.

        Then someone comes to the blog and says “The moon is made of green cheese. I have proof!”

        The owner of the blog asks for this evidence.

        “I read a book that says it’s made of green cheese.”

        Our blog owner points out that one book is not evidence, especially when we do have rocks from the moon *and* our biggest geopolitical rivals never questioned the reality of the moon landings. We have confirmed analyses of various types, spectragraphy, etc, from all over the world that agree that the moon is rocky.

        “It’s a giant conspiracy!”

        Evidence for this conspiracy is asked for.

        “Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is part of the conspiracy.”

        The blog owner says that he doesn’t believe this commenter and that there is plenty of evidence that shows the commenter is wrong in their claims and proceeds to cite the evidence they have for their claims that the moon is a rocky object in space.

        Then your comment comes in so handily, minus the sexist part of course:
        “For you to continue to posit the remarks you have made and to continue to consider that your comments and posts are logically sound demonstrates a grave lack of understanding of logical fallacies. You don’t have to agree with me. But not agreeing with me does not make what you say true. My not providing evidence does not make your claims true. My not showing you were you are wrong does not make what you’ve argued true. What is true is true. Truth does not care for what is agreed upon, shown as evident, or can be argued…that’s the great thing about truth. If you are not very intelligent then you are not very intelligent. If I am a not a sexist then I am not a sexist. Get it?”

        Now in a moment to get to your lovely little post. Always great to see immediately that you are lying and using straw man attacks again, KD. I like this one best “Don’t question science because it’s true whether or not you believe in it…”. Hmmm, funny how I *don’t* blindly accept science just like I don’t blindly accept your claims without evidence. One more attempt to lie about me and what I think because you have nothing else. Science uses evidence. You refuse to and that seems to be because you haven’t any. I wonder, how many times does an omnipotent omniscient god have to forgive you for intentionally breaking its rules when it supposedly knows you will? Again, KD, you being a Christian is excellent evidence that your religion is nothing more than a human created artifact.

      • Vel, I see you have thought through my comment. But the thing is you are looking at it from the skewed perspective that you are the one saying the moon is a rocky object in space.

        Picture a scenario where you believed the moon was not a rocky object in space and someone comes along and says that it is. You ask for evidence, but because that person has decided to toy with you, they chose not to show you the evidence which you requested or desired.

        In this scenario, who is telling the truth on the composition of the moon? The one claiming the moon is not made of rocks or the one who says that it is made of rocks but does not provide any evidence to support their claims?

        Vel, you have also determined that you are qualified to judge what is true vs. what is a lie. You might believe something that I’ve said about you to be a lie, but to me it might be true, it again comes down to perspective. Now, an omniscient and omnipotent God would know which perspective is true.

        The act of repentance or acknowledging wrongness is something that I practice all the time because I know how fallible we are as humans. To demonstrate, I will once again apologize for any things I said intentionally that have offended you and also I will apologize if I said something that unintentionally offended you. Will you forgive me?

        No matter how hard we try, we will make mistakes and get things wrong. This omnipotent omniscient god that you are so opposed to provides us a wonderful a supernatural way to look at the act of reconciliation or forgiveness in the example of Christ on the cross.

        To answer your question how many times this God of mine has to forgive me: Once.

        When we recognize that we are wrong or have offended someone, the act of repentance is for the person who committed the offense. It is also for the person who was offended, but that person doesn’t always accept the request for reconciliation.

        To illustrate this another way, God does not grit His teeth and tell people…I guess I’ll forgive you. Rather He grins and says, My daughter or son, you are forgiven. God always accepts a repentant heart but only a repentant heart accepts that they have been wrongful in their actions against God or others.

        This type of forgiveness from God is for all who choose to believe in Christ. The problem is when you compare the ideal to reality as you look at people like me, you observe all of my imperfections. You should not look to me to see what a Christian should be like but you should gaze your eyes upon Jesus to see what Christians should be like. Stop comparing yourself to Christians and start comparing yourself to Christ. If that’s not enough to change your perspective than I don’t know what is.

      • If you believe somehow that amusing yourself at my expense proves that you are right about something, go ahead. I don’t see how it shows anything other than a lack of decency towards those who do not agree with you, but I guess that’s just my perspective.

      • Nice try again to twist my words, KD. No, dear, I don’t think that amusing myself at your expense proves I’m right about anything. The evidence has done that repeatedly. I am thinking that I am having fun watching you act like a typical TrueChristian.

        and aw, I’m indecent for not allowing your lies to stand. I am sure you would like to believe that, along with your belief that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is unintelligent. Decency is to point out when someone is lying so no one else is harmed. I certainly don’t agree with you and neither does reality. So, KD, when it is decent to tell someone that they are wrong and aren’t agreed with? Should we never counter the erroneous beliefs of others so we don’t hurt their feelings? that seems to be what you are advocating. Is it? Please clarify.

      • Yep, I am indeed looking at the discussion from being the person with the facts, KD. As opposed to you, who has repeatedly refused to give any evidence for his claims. Still waiting for your evidence, KD. The moon is indeed a rocky body in space and is not made of cheese. Religion is harmful and your miracle is nonsense and you have no evidence for your god or that your version of your religion is the right one.

        Hmmm, in a scenario where I didn’t believe in a rocky moon and a person said it was rocky and then refused to give me the evidence. Well, I wouldn’t believe them if I had evidence to show their claims wrong. But if I had no evidence at all but only baseless belief, then I would consider that I could be wrong and then demand the evidence again. If they still refused, then I’d look for evidence elsewhere. You see, I don’t only rely on one person or source when I am told things that contradict what I know.
        Then you ask, who is telling the truth, the one making an unsupportable claim, that the moon is not made from rocks or the one who says it is but refuses to provide the evidence? One is telling the truth because the evidence support him no matter what but is being a jackass for no apparent reason. The other is telling a lie if he is trying to claim that his unsupported claim is the truth.

        So, let’s look at your actions. You have made baseless claims and have claimed that they are the truth. You are lying. There is no evidence to support your claims and there *is* evidence that contradicts your claims. If you do have evidence, you are being a jackass for some reason. But there is no reason to think that you have any evidence at all and all of your claims of evidence are the usual lies of a TrueChristian who is just stalling for time and hoping that some of his nonsense will stick to the wall.

        Yep, I can judge what is a lie, KD. It’s not hard at all, just look at the evidence. If someone consistently refuses to provide evidence of his claims, then he is likely lying if he has no need to hide this evidence. As I have said before, in a court of law, baseless claims are nothing more than hearsay, they are not evidence of anything. It’s hilarious that you think you can have your very own truth. Believing what you say is true doesn’t make it true, KD.

        Just like clockwork, the claim that reality isn’t real, the solipsistic retreat by a desperate TrueChrsitian. Truth does not come down to perspective. But again, if you think it does, please do jump in that ladle of molten iron if you think your “perspective” can save you. How about volunteering for land mine removal duty if you are sure your god will protect you? Or doesn’t that “perspective” work when high explosives are around? I do love how you insist that only your god could know what the truth is, but unfortunately that isn’t true, either as a claim of what this god is if one relies on the bible’s description nor in reality where your “perspective” doesn’t matter a damn to the bullet that kills the kid on the street during a drive-by shooting.

        Humans are indeed fallible but they can correct their mistakes if shown them. You’ve been shown and you refuse to correct them. Your apologies are worthless since you have repeated lies about me again and again when called on them. You do not deserve forgiveness for you have not corrected your actions. I am not a vending machine that will ignore what you have done.

        The omnipotent and omniscient god that you claim exists has no evidence that it does. So, there is no reason to think it has provided anything, much less reconciliation and forgiveness by the brutal murder of a man insisted on by this supposed god. It is no more than the primitive blood sacrifice offered by the Jews or any other religion. This is the god that couldn’t get things straightened out for supposed thousands of years with its believers. We first had a flood that was to get rid of the evil people. That failed and of course has no evidence. Then we had a raft of laws on how to behave given by a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient god that by definition would have known that this nonsense would fail. And then we are to believe that it finally dawned on this god to need itself to die for itself to forgive humanity for the sins that this entity knew these people would commit. Umm, why not send JC right after Adam and Eve messed up? Sure would have saved a lot of time, eh? Or heck, maybe keep that pesky “snake” out of the garden? Christianity is simply ridiculous. Hmmm, let me guess, the answer will be that we can’t understand why this god did such stupid things.

        It’s nice that you’ve created a god that “grins” and says I’ll forgive you. Hmmm, funny how that doesn’t really work with the god in the bible with all of that hell stuff and where he kills everyone who doesn’t agree with him in Revelation, plus allows his archenemy to go free to corrupt even more people. It is also interesting that you appear to be a TrueChristian of the type that thinks he is forgiven once and then it’s okay from then on. Other TrueChristians don’t agree, but that’s no surprise.

        Christians can be good people, KD. I know that, they don’t all choose to lie about others. You have and have done so repeatedly. There is no “ideal” Christian, since you all can’t agree on what your god “really” wants. I have indeed “gazed” upon Jesus Christ and found him to be a myth, a bit of nonsense no more moral or real than Horus or Thor. And which Jesus, KD? The one that says turn the other cheek or the one that says that all of those who don’t believe in him should be killed? The one who threw a fit at a fig tree for not having figs on it out of season or the one who said that people should not murder a woman for failing the laws that were given by his omnipotent dad? The one that said never said one word about slavery being wrong? The one that said that all of his father’s laws were to be followed until the end of the earth? The one that said do unto others (a sentiment that has been around a lot earlier than one supposed man/god from Palestine)? I’ve read the bible and I know that your version isn’t the one in there. I can easily compare myself to Jesus Christ and know that I am in so many ways better than that character. Happily, human morals have progressed long past those of xenophobic agrarians from 2000+ years ago.

        My husband has had a good time tonight catching up on your posts. He wonders “why doesn’t he just say what the fuck he means?” when coming upon your claim of metaphor, irony, etc. Being an English Lit major, it’s not hard for him to see through your nonsense. He also was chuckling again about your claims on how I was in my early 20s and only married for a few years.

      • Oh no, Vel has invoked the English definitions and grammar argument…how am I ever going to show her wrong when I have to use English definitions and grammar?

        I guess Vel has never heard of a metaphor. It’s a shame. Especially when she claims to understand the written language so well and be oh so very intelligent.

        Oh and how she missed that my statement was directed towards her definition of religion and not the metaphorical use of the term found in the context my post.

        It’s great to listen to Vel compare apples and oranges and argue that they are the same thing.

        The other thing I want to comment about (as there isn’t enough time to cover everything wrong with Vel’s comments) is that poor lil Vel cannot make sense of my quote. It’s ironic because she expects others to believe that she is “very intelligent” because that is her opinion of herself and not because she has demonstrated it…hmm?

        Should I be surprised that Vel thinks Neil DeGrasse Tyson (NDT) quote is a good one?

        I guess he is one of the beacons of reason for atheists today. One of those prophets atheists claim they don’t have.

        But let’s look at his quote. “Good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it.”

        Oh that NDT is sooo clever. He sure fooled Vel.

        Vel, you truly believe that science is true whether or not you believe in it?

        How ignorant!

        Don’t question science because it’s true whether or not you believe in it…

        His quote should be: Good thing about science is that (what scientists say for the time being, that is until scientists make more discoveries and then what they say at that time, so on and so forth) is true whether or not you believe in it.

        It kind of loses it’s cleverness when you put it in context doesn’t it.

        His claim is that something that is not static (science) is something that is static (true). Science is not what is true about nature and the universe it is one of the methods humanity uses to understand what is already true about nature and the universe.

        To phrase it as a question: If our understanding of nature and the universe (science) changes over time, how can it be the thing that makes nature and the universe true?

        And you just gobble up this “good man’s” quote.

        For the quote to be more accurate it would have to be as such: “Good thing about what is true, is that humanity might one day understand it.”

        Have I said logical thinking is not one of Vel’s strong suits. To answer my own question: I’m not surprised that she agree’s with NDT’s quote.

      • Still more vague claims, lies, and no answers to my questions. Shucks. Thousands of words and poor KD has no time to actually provide evidence. Congratulations!

        Why yes, KD, I have invoked grammar and definitions. I have because they show your claims to not “really” have meant what you have said to be false. You do indeed use English grammar and definitions, and then you do your best to ignore them when it is convenient for your attempts to revise history.

        Oh now we get that KD was using “metaphors”. Okay, KD, show me where you used a metaphor. You see, I know what metaphors are and they can be deconstructed if you really did use them. Of course, this claim is hilarious since TrueChristians claim the parts of the bible that make no sense or say inconveniently horrific things are just “metaphors”. It’s the good ol’ magic decoder ring defense. So, again, KD, show me these metaphors that you used and what they “really” mean. Metaphors are not just random words that you decide mean something else as is convenient for you. They have intent that can be shown, like when Shakespear uses them or they are used in the bible where someone’s breasts are called a pair of fawns. Can you show me this intent and any sense to your supposed “metaphors”? So, yes, KD, Vel has heard of metaphors and knows when it is very likely that a theist is claiming metaphors where none exist. Show me what one thing means another. What are you using figuratively?

        You have yet to show any evidence that I am comparing apples to oranges, only more vague claims. But you can do so now, what is the apple and what is the orange? Which statement of yours was the metaphor, KD and which were to be taken literally?

        I love it, one more claim that poor KD has no time. You say that there isn’t enough time to cover everything supposedly “wrong” in my post. It’s so nice to see that you do think I’m wrong, KD, and have finally said exactly that. More vague accusations and of course nothing to support them. Plenty of time for a post of several hundred words but not one actual bit of evidence that these claims are true. Your track record is stellar, KD.

        I’m assuming that you mean this quote when you say I can’t make any sense of it. ““For you to continue to posit the remarks you have made and to continue to consider that your comments and posts are logically sound demonstrates a grave lack of understanding of logical fallacies. You don’t have to agree with me. But not agreeing with me does not make what you say true. My not providing evidence does not make your claims true. My not showing you were you are wrong does not make what you’ve argued true. What is true is true. Truth does not care for what is agreed upon, shown as evident, or can be argued…that’s the great thing about truth. If you are not very intelligent then you are not very intelligent. If I am a not a sexist then I am not a sexist. Get it?”

        Oh, I can make sense of it, I just find it hilarious. As I have stated, it is exactly what someone who has nothing to support their false claims would say. You want to pretend you have some magical truth and that it’s everyone else’s fault if they don’t see it. Every theist wants this to be true because they have nothing to show that their beliefs are true. They must declare that facts don’t apply to their gods and their myths because if they did, those gods and myths would be shown to be no different than those gods and myths they don’t believe in. But they of course are sure that those other religions are wrong. I do wonder, how do they know if they don’t have evidence of this?
        It’s also great fun to watch you, KD, a theist who is sure that they don’t need evidence. I believe I have pointed this out before, but you require evidence on everything else in your life, but surprise! You decide your religion doesn’t have to be analyzed that way. Isn’t that convenient, the one thing that has nothing to support it, doesn’t need evidence to support it, just like your lies about me don’t need evidence to support those?

        Ah, Dr. deGrasse Tyson’s quote ““Good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” It seems that you, KD, have no idea how science and the scientific method works. If a theory is correct, everyone will get the same answer when they test it. If it is not, they won’t. Belief and really really hoping and praying will do nothing to change the results. This is why I believe in results that are arrived at by the scientific method. It’s the reason you believe in them too, KD. This is why you think you have safe food because we know that we can detect and combat pathogens that can kill people if eaten.

        I have not and will never accept something if someone only says “hey, a scientist said this and it must be true!”. So your false claim that I believe in science with no consideration and analysis is one more lie told by you. Indeed, “how ignorant”.

        Aw, you decided to rewrite someone else’s quote! I suppose I should feel honored to be part of a group that Dr. deGrasse Tyson is part of. How nice and how expected. More attempts at creating strawmen for you to attack since you fail so badly with real opponents. I do love how you try so hard to lie about people. It’ makes Christianity look just so appealing, you know.

        Science is indeed true until someone else can show it is wrong. It can change and the results are dependent on reproduction. The results of the scientific method can be shown to be true. They may not be complete, but they can be shown true to the limits of what we know at a time, for example the age of the universe. Now, let’s compare this to your claims of truth, your religion. So, what is the evidence that shows your god to exist? Can your observations be shown to be true and those of another theist false? Going back to your claim, one should always be able to distinguish the truth because one can’t avoid it. There should be evidence everywhere to show that something is true, but funny how your religion can’t provide it.

        Hmmm, if our understanding of the bible and god changes over time, how can it be true? Hmmm, KD? How does that work if it can’t work for science? What’s the excuse this time?

        Aw, and more baseless personal insults. Thanks, KD. Always happy to see a TrueChristian is nothing special. I am glad that I know that religion makes no difference in if a person is good or not. If I didn’t, think of all of the decent people who would be tarred with a brush because of the actions of a few.

      • I should not be too surprised. In my post I have used the term religion as a metaphor to the opposition to/or rejection of God. So in a sense the antonym of the word itself.

        I then contrast this opposition to/or rejection of God (religion) to worship of God that a person experiences through Jesus (relationship).

        As you can see at the end of the post that I note that it was written in a bit of a haste and I mention the unrefined writing style I am prone to. So I will admit that in my rant; my message may not have been clearly conveyed, for that reason, my apologies. But I hope in light of my explanation here you we be able to note the contextual use of the word and the contrast I was going for.

        In our conversation when the term religion was used, at least by the context that you were using it: the word meant the belief in or worship of a god or group of gods. My statement “I have never said anything negative about religion,” was in reference to this definition. When we compare this to the term used in my post, which essential means the opposite of what was defined in our conversation, we can note that we are not talking about the same “religion.” And thus, I have not lied when I stated, “I have not said anything negative about the belief in a god or group of gods.”

        What I have expressed in a negative light is the opposition to/or rejection of God. See the apples and oranges yet?

        I think it was you that mentioned KD is sooo clever that people like Vel don’t notice how clever he is being. But I’d liken it more to Tom and Jerry than Wylie E. Coyote…and sense you like cats so much you can be Tom!

        I will have to read through the rest of your comment and get back to you on it.

      • You must have been a real treat in your college classes.

        You have not used religion as a metaphor for the opposition to or religion of God. KD, a metaphor is a comparison, and you have not used the term religion that way. You have said that religion *is* the rejection of your god and opposition to your god and that it is bad. A metaphor is not what you seem to think it is. Again, a metaphor is a figure of speech that says one thing is like something else, aka the world is a stage when it is obviously not. You have said that religion *is* defined as opposition to your god and rejection of your god. You have not said it is like that. You have tried to redefine words and have tried to claim atheism is a religion for what seems to be the sole purpose to declare that atheism is just as bad as the religion you claim to dislike so much. Oh yes, and we do have that lovely claim of yours that you have never claimed anything negative about religion. It’s good to see you do exactly that again.

        Then we get the usual nonsense about how your “relationship” isn’t a religion and is sooo much better but you can’t show that your god even exists much less that anyone else who is a theist is wrong and is so very bad for following a religion. Yep, it’s the usual attempts from a TrueChristian to attack anyone who disagrees with them. Ooh, you have a religion but I have a “relationship”. So many of you do this, all sure that you and only you have the “right” way to worship this god of yours. Each of you claim to have some personal relationship and all of you can’t agree on what this god wants, which shows any claim of “relationship” is nothing more than the usual humans creating your god in your image.

        And no, KD, it’s not magically an antonym either, which is a hysterically funny claim since metaphors don’t operate by comparing something to its direct opposite. Your claims of “in a sense” always fail since you cannot show how this works “in a sense”. It’s just more of you throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks, that someone else will do the work and come up with how this possibly could be correct.

        Oh, and now your excuse is that you wrote quickly and poor KD can’t be held responsible for what he writes. Well, KD, no one is holding you to respond in any time frame, so your excuse fails as usual. You don’t write in an “unrefined style”, you write in an incompetent and dishonest style, where you make claims that you cannot support, you lie about me and you continually attempt to claim that you didn’t really mean what you wrote.

        I am gratified to see again that you want to again try to revise history to change what you have said. I also find it hilarious that you finally admit that I was using religion as a belief and worship of a god/gods in my original context. Yep, after all of your insistence that atheism is a religion and trying your best to claim that by attacking religion I was attacking atheism, we have it that this has never been true.

        We do get to see you now claiming that you never said anything negative about religion in the “context” of believing/worshipping in a god or gods. That’s just great, KD. You said you *never* said anything negative about religion, and never means never. Again, it’s great that we have a recording media to show all of your errors. You have said that religion was something that you wish you did not participate in. And the context of that claim on your very own blog? That religion is the belief and worship of god/gods that KD doesn’t agree with and finds wrong. “What happens in most cases when people don’t like one religion is that they try another one or create their own. I hate it. I hate that I am prone to religion. Like I said, the answer to religion is Jesus. If you say that “I am Presbyterian” or “I go to this or that church,” you might be a follower of Christ but you are also following a religion. The same goes if you don’t go to church or follow Jesus, you might say “I am Muslim” or “I am a naturalist” but those again are religions. You see, religion is a man-made construct it was never part of God’s plan for humanity.”

        It’s great to see a theist trying to redefine words as is convenient for him, when you decide that you don’t like religion, which means the belief and worship of god/gods. I completely understand why so many theists want to distance themselves from the term religion since your actions have made the word less than flattering. But religion has always meant the belief and worship of god/gods aka your “relationship”. You’ve just attempted to move the definition to another word after you’ve dirtied one.
        Religion has never meant the opposition to or the rejection of god, KD. That is just made up by people by you who want to claim that other theists are wrong and evidently in an attempt to claim that atheists are even worse than before because they are a “religion”! Oh horrors  it’s the worst thing you can think of so of course everyone who doesn’t agree with you must have a “religion” now.

        There are no apples and oranges, KD. There is only you trying to change definitions in your attempt to claim everyone but you is somehow wrong and being unable to show this to be true at all. All of those Presybterians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc are somehow wrong. Okay, show it, KD. Those atheists are wrong. Okay, show the evidence for your personal version of your god. Show that any gods exist since you claim to believe in more than one.

        There is nothing clever about trying to redefine words and revising history and yep, I have yet to see you be clever at all. Your tactics are rather silly when they are tried in a recording medium and where anyone can look up a word’s definition, and many many very inept people have tried to do such things, from the folks who want to deny the Holocaust, to twits like Clive Bundy, etc.

      • I was a treat in college, my peers and professors thought well of me.

        I understand your disagreements with my post, but it does not change the context in which they were written or the intended meaning if the words used. Your arguments are valid but that does not make what you say against my post true. I will take your objections to mind in my future writings.

        Thank you for expressing your concerns with my post and comments.

      • That’s good. It must be just with me where you try to tell me that I don’t understand what you’ve written and how dare I tell, and show, you that you are wrong. I can just hear that last sentence said to your profs. “Thank you for expressing your concerns with my papers and tests.”

        Your posts were written in the context that is in them, KD. Your continual attempts to redefine words is always enjoyable and expected. Again, words have meanings that are set, not what KD retroactively wants them to “really” mean. I also have to wonder, do you know what the word valid means, KD? “well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful; logically correct” Your saying ” Your arguments are valid but that does not make what you say against my post true.” makes not much sense if you replace the definition with the word “valid”. How does my arguments being well-grounded or justifiable, relevant and meaningful and logically correct make them not true?

        And nice bit of lies about Dr. deGrasse Tyson on your blog. How wonderfully expected, more bearing of false witness.

      • Vel, I wanted to apologize for making the argument that you are not very intelligent. My comments were misleading.

        I believe you to be more intelligent than most people that I have met. Thank you for the months of conversation filled with thought provoking information.

        auf Wiedersehen, KD.

      • KD, your argument was utterly false, not just “misleading”. Your lie was pointed out to you repeatedly and you persisted in telling it. You made just as false accusations about me and my actions repeatedly and with no evidence for your claims.

        I accept your apology in the belief that people can realize their errors.

      • I see you don’t understand my question that you rephrased. Should I be flattered that you would try and turn it around on me?

        At least you might be beginning to understand how to ask the right questions. There may be hope for you yet!

        And I love the confirmation bias you are using now that I finally said the word wrong. You apparently take this to “prove that my presence here was to show you and your post wrong,” right? Hmm, we have no further to look at the direction of our conversation, which confirms not the reason I came here but the conversation you desired to have.

        At the very beginning, my questions were inquisitive not accusatory. If you go back and read them, do you not agree with me?

        When you go back and read my first comment you will see that my questions are to understand what you are saying in your post and your position on speaking out against religion, but is there a single accusation that I have claimed you were wrong? After you read my comment, re-read your response to it. From the start, the trajectory you wanted the conversation to go was for me to “prove you wrong.”

        So when I say now that I find things in your post or comments wrong it does not prove that was the reason I began commenting, which was to understand your position and post. It just shows that you desired a conversation where I show you wrong. It seems evidence does not agree with yet another claim of yours? I wonder how much more you will need?

      • Hmm, how did I “rephrase” a question that you asked, KD? Again, more claims but nothing to support them. How about a quote from me, KD so I know what you are talking about? Ah, but that would make it too easy to show you wrong again, eh?

        I do like how you again try to claim that I am unintelligent. I do know how to ask the “right” questions, KD. I’ve been asking them for months now and I still haven’t gotten answers to them. All of those questions to clarify what you have said, questions that you requested that I ask you, and still no answers.

        And where is this “confirmation bias”you claim, KD? It seems that again you are trying to use a term I have used in order to gain some kind of validity. It was indeed enjoyable to see you use the word wrong, when you have continually claimed that you have never indicated that I was wrong, but that our opinions only differed. You have claimed I have been wrong long before this, KD, this is only the first time that you said I was wrong using the term wrong. In all of the other times, you have tried to claim I was wrong by making contradictory claims and as always never any evidence. Trying to say that my facts are incorrect is saying I’m wrong, KD. It’s hilarious when you refuse to support your claims insisting that the burden of proof is not yours. Being unable to show me to be in error is just silly when you claim to know some “truth”. No one believes you, KD. You are not some chosen person that has the only “right” way to know your god. You are one more TrueChristian who makes the same false claims as every other TrueChristian, TrueJew, TrueMuslim, etc does.

        The direction of our conversation has been documented right here, KD. Again, let’s review: I posted a blog post about how religion is harmful and any good that it may have done can be accomplished by other means. You arrived to say that I was wrong in saying that belief in god/s is harmful and useless and that atheism was a religion. I showed that your claim was false by citing evidence of how belief in the supernatural does consistently cause harm and that atheism was not a religion as I had used the term in my blog post. You continued to claim that atheism is a religion. You vanished for a bit and then came back with a story about how great it was that your god gave you a miracle so you could pick out a piece of jewelry. I told you that this was a rather pathetic miracle and showed how it could be explained without having to rely on a supernatural being who has time to help you pick out jewelry but not enough time to save a starving person or magically kill someone who was about to chop off someone’s limbs with a machete. In amongst these things, we discussed homosexuality, which you have claimed that someone can choose and of course refuse to say how you chose to be a heterosexual. We have discussed the nonsense of your claims of creationism, etc. We have seen you repeatedly lie about me and my actions, being unable to show evidence of your claims about me. We have seen you insist that I am unintelligent because I do not agree with you. We have seen you claim that you don’t have time to show evidence that you claim to have that shows that you are right but you have time to write thousands of words of excuses and more and more false claims.

        So again, we can see exactly your reasons for coming here and for returning here. Reviewing your first post, https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/#comment-2282 I am amused that you have never defined what you think positive and negative values are. Amazing how such simple questions are so rarely answered by TrueChristians.
        As we can see from the link, your questions were not the innocent “inquisitive” questions you claim. I do love how you are so desperate that I agree with you “If you go back and read them, do you not agree with me?”. I don’t, KD, and for very good reason aka evidence. Let’s look at them, shall we? “Are you condemning one worldview (belief in god) and promoting your worldview (belief that no gods exist)? How exactly is that different from what anyone else does? How can anyone know that your claims are true? How do you know that what you claim is the correct answer?” Lovely accusations right here. You do know what an accusation is, right, KD? It’s when you try to claim that someone has done something wrong. Or how about this one “Yeah, there are a lot of people (myself included) that gets it wrong at times but that doesn’t mean it makes everything about believing in God wrong.” You of course could not support this claim. And this one “I do not believe the Bible to teach religion but a way of life with a creator God who loves and desires humanity to choose him as opposed to doing it their own way. But humanity in continual disobedience of God’s will falls victim to religious mind sets and follows religion rather than following God…so I feel when an atheist uses the “evils” of religion as a means of not believing in God, they’ve missed the point. “ More lovely negative claims about religion, attempts to redefine the word, and attempts to claim that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do are wrong.

        I responded by saying, among other things “Yes, I am claiming that all religions are wrong. If you can show me one that you can show right, please do. I am expecting evidence of the existence of any gods claimed to be real, that any laws will be cause punishment/reward by said gods, evidence of any special events claimed by the religion to be real, etc.” You claimed to know that your religion was true, so I asked for evidence of this. And to this date, you have provided nothing to show that. Religions are wrong because they teach people to believe in something that doesn’t exist, among other things.

        So, your whining that you didn’t know what you were getting into is demonstrably false, as so many other things you have said.

        From the very beginning you tried to tell me I am wrong and that everyone who doesn’t agree with KD is wrong.

      • Again, no, KD. You actions speak far louder than your words. You have made false accusations against me. To show that you deserve forgiveness, you have to recant your accusations. That is what I expect. You can’t just ask “forgive me” and not address what you did wrong. Forgive you for what, KD? Tell me what you did to need forgiveness and show that you now know what you did wrong. Will you say “Vel never used any logical fallacies and I was wrong to have claimed she did without providing any evidence. I was wrong to insist that everyone but me has the burden of proof for positive claims.”? I am guessing that you will not do as I ask. It’s much harder admitting that you were wrong than simply asking for forgiveness. It is also very easy to ask for forgiveness and then try to pretend that you are morally superior because you want to pretend that refusing forgiveness is wrong and everyone owes it to you if you ask for it.

      • Vel, I was wrong to antagonize you for as long as I have, will you forgive me?

        The statement you are requesting would be for me to make amends for the perceived wrong done against you. It would not be forgiveness if you require me to make amends.

        Forgiveness is giving something that is not deserved. Recompense is requiring or expecting something as repayment.

        I’m not pretending to be morally superior to you. You have believed a great deal of wrong things about me in “my actions” and “my words.” These things you’ve believed about me are not true and convincing you otherwise has proven borderline ad nausem. I do expect you to believe me when I say that the KD you have depicted is not an accurate representation of who I am. But from what I know about you it is unlikely that you are capable of doing that.

        It was my choice to ask for forgiveness. It is your choice whether or not you grant forgiveness. I have not stated that it is wrong for you to refuse forgiveness. I just don’t understand it. Why are my comments too great of an offense for you to forgive? Why must I make amends by making a public recanting of my comments?

        You are starting to sound like the Catholic Church demanding Martin Luther to recant parts of his writings.

        And actually it sounds like you are pretending to be morally superior. Pretending that someone must earn forgiveness or pay for the offense and that it is not something that can be granted freely to those who ask. Would you consider the below example an act of forgiveness or not?

        I owe you $100 and tell you that I cannot afford to repay you, asking you to forgive my debt. You then say to me, “Once you have repaid the $100, I will forgive the debt you owe me.”

      • Vel, perhaps you should click your own link on Schrodinger’s cat and read a little more carefully on the paradox that is created by the thought experiment. Perhaps, I’ll return in a little bit and explain further why it is in a sense like an argument from silence since you clearly don’t understand.

      • I have read the link, KD, and I know what it says, including the concept of paradox in relationship to observation on quantum events. Thank you again for making a false claim and again doing your best to pretend if I re-read something I’ll magically come to agree with you.

        It’s hilarious when you claim I’m wrong and then refuse to show how. You could have explained your “in a sense” when you first made the claim. You could have again done so in the post I am replying to show me what I “clearly don’t understand”, but you never do. It’s always more vague claims and nothing to back them up, just promises that you have evidence and at some nebulous time in the future you *might* show it if I do what you want me to do.

        Your claim: “You cannot make an argument from the absence of evidence as it could be true or false. In a sense the argument from silence is similar to Schrodinger’s Cat, the argument is both true (alive) and false (dead) at the same time.”

        KD, please do “return in a bit” and show me how “wrong” I am. I do expect lots of detail. You have the link and apparently find it worthwhile since you say I should read it; so use it and support your claim.

      • Nope, my “showing it to you” is completely ambiguous this time. I won’t actually tell you what you should do because I think you are smart enough to know what I would suggest.

        Now why would it have to be “magical” for you to agree with me? Why is it not logical? Or practical? Or seemingly possible?

        It is impossible for you to agree with me on anything Vel? Or is it that I have not “fully” (according to Vel) provided satisfactory evidence? Or perhaps you feel it necessary to attack anything I say because of differing positions regarding the existence of gods?

        Maybe it’s because you want to posit that you are right and I am wrong without actually exploring the message that is being conveyed?

        Maybe it’s just a complete ignorance on your part to view your own words/comments/posts objectively?

        Vel, if you understood the thought experiment you would understand that the quantum paradox that is created by Schrodinger’s Cat is that it may be both alive and dead.

        There are other quantum realities that the thought experience posses but the paradox is that the cat is both alive and dead depending on a previously unknown occurrence. The link even provided a film style timeline showing the cat as alive and dead as it branches away from the occurrence.

        It shows that in quantum mechanics that a possible multi-verse would mean that while you are alive in the this “uni”-verse that in a multi-verse there could be a version where you that is or a male, or a theist, or a parent, or any number of things dependent on the unknown occurrence that occurred and where on the timeline it took place.

      • Ah, here we go again where if I were just smart enough, I’d know what KD is thinking and agree with him. Again, we have promises and of course KD can’t come through showing me anything. It seems that you can’t do what I’ve asked: “KD, please do “return in a bit” and show me how “wrong” I am. I do expect lots of detail. You have the link and apparently find it worthwhile since you say I should read it; so use it and support your claim.”

        Well, KD, since you have shown no good reasons for me to agree with you, nor any practicality for agreeing with you, nor any possibility of your claims being true, there is no reason for me to agree with you other than magic.

        Since you make baseless claims, no, KD, there is no reason to agree with your claims. I can agree with you that the sky is a shade of blue during the daytime most of the time. I can agree that cats are mammals as are we. All of these things have evidence supporting them, KD. You see I can agree with you when there is reason to; I won’t agree with you unless there is reason to.

        You have provide no evidence for your claims, KD. I have not said that I am waiting for you to “fully” provide evidence, KD. That’s your schtick when you ask for evidence, I give it and then you claim that it isn’t enough. Still waiting for evidence of your gods, KD. Show me evidence that your god created the universe, created man, caused a magical flood that covered the earth, caused ten plagues in Egypt, sent part of itself to earth and resurrected itself, healed people, etc.
        Your message has been that Vel is wrong and that KD is right, but don’t dare question the claims that KD makes. But please do tell me what you want to claim the “real” message has been, KD. I’m waiting.

        Aw, and more attempts to insult me and my intelligence.

        I do understand the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment. I do love how again you claim that the only way I could understand it correctly is to agree with you. Ah, good to see the classics again. Tell me about these “other quantum realities” that the “thought experience “possesses”. Where does it say that in the experiment, KD? And wow, a film? Why that makes everything better! As you can see in the wiki article, your idea of a multiverse is only one of many interpretations of what is really going on, not the only one; it’s a hypothesis, not a theory in the scientific sense which makes the wiki entry confusing. Schrodinger knew his example was a ridiculously overly simplistic explanation of what is really going on.

        However, theists and a lot of woo meisters glom onto it as if it were an accurate description because they don’t like the actual answer. It’s like when non-quantum physicists want to pretend that *anything* can happen when it is not the case. Yes, it appears through some quantum mechanics that all of the air in the room could suddenly be in Norway, but that never happens. Quantum mechanics is a fascinating field, and it is not perfect. We get better and better with it when we come up with better ways to observe. Still waiting for in what “sense” this has to do with what I have written. How about some quotes of mine?

      • Vel, an argument can have valid premises and an invalid conclusion. You have seemingly failed to understand this concept.

        You have not shown that your argument is logically sound. You have not provided evidence that the conclusion of your argument is true. You have not shown that “all religions are wrong” by the content of your post or subsequent comments.

        You have argued beyond the point of reason that I must must show a god to exist for your claim to be false, this is not a valid argument. Vel, there is no evidence or reason to believe what you have claimed “that all religions are wrong,”based on the comments and arguments from your post. You must show that what you are claiming is true and that your argument is logically sound. You must prove that you have done as you claim, the burden is solely on you. You have also seemingly failed to understand this concept.

        I have done as much as I can to get you to understand these concepts. Your failure to understand these things or at least demonstrate that you understand them is on you. You can believe that all religions are wrong, but you have failed at proving it logically or with evidence that supports your claim.

        If you care to keep trying to persuade me that you are in fact right, then you must show that your argument is logically sound with valid premises AND a valid conclusion. If something fits into a logical fallacy it is because it is logically fallible. If you do not believe me then you must show me that an argument can be logical sound even when it is shown to fit the form of a logical fallacy (examples would be nice). You also must show that the evidence you provide actually supports your claim. I have a difficult time believing you when you make such fallacious conclusions based on your logic and supporting evidence like, “KD is a liar and a sexist.”

        You can believe what you want to believe, but don’t claim to be “very intelligent” or logical or that you use evidence that supports your claim when you do not. Like I said before, there is no evidence that the things you have claimed are in fact true.

        The main reason I intentionally ignored your requests is because they were largely unrelated to the topic of the discussion. I know you believe them to be valid but they are not. As your claim was that all religions are wrong and you have failed to show this claim to be true. I am still waiting for evidence or your logical reasoning that supports your claim that “all religions are wrong.”

        What you have provided so far is typical atheist excuses for why all religion is wrong. You have yet to prove your claim is true based on logic or the evidence you’ve used to support your claim. If you still believe you can do this, rather than the baseless claim that you “have” done this, please do as I am still waiting for you to “show” me that what you have claimed is true.

      • KD, please do show where I have arrived at a invalid conclusion. Still waiting for that along with evidence for every other baseless claim you’ve made.

        So you claim that one can have “valid premises” and come to an invalid conclusion. Why yes one can do this but you need to show me where I did it. How does this work, KD? Show me an example. You see, I know that one can have a false premises and get a true conclusion, by luck rather than logic. One can use true premises but then abuse logic and get a false answer. Show me where I have done this. Or will you refuse again insisting that if I were only intelligent I would agree with you and I would see this mysterious evidence you claim is there and that no one, even you, can find?

        I have shown my arguments logically sound. Again, KD, just because you gainsay them does not make what you say true. I have shown that all religions are wrong because their claims and promises are not supported by any evidence. I have also shown that they cause harm by making people think that magical things can happen when they do not. It is the same when I can show that all people who believe in fairies are wrong because there is no evidence for fairies either, when people who believe in reptiloid aliens are posing as world leaders, etc. Your beliefs are no more valid than any of these. Christianity is based on claims of a magical man/god that cannot be shown to have existed, a divine creation and fall that has no evidence for it, a decimation of Ancient Egypt that has no evidence for it, fabulous temples and palaces that have no evidence for them, failed prophecies that can be shown to be wrong, etc. All you have is the same claims as every other religion has, that somehow one can see your personal god in “creation”, that your god does miracles that have no evidence, that you “feel” your god. You have nothing to show me that your religion or any religion is any kind of representation of reality.

        I have asked you repeatedly if you would believe in baseless claims from other people about their gods, and unsurprisingly you haven’t answered that question. You claim to believe in other gods. Why, KD, what evidence you have? Or is it that you have nothing and you believe blindly, without logic. I do not believe in things just because I wish they were true, that is not logical. Logic decrees that without evidence there is no reason to believe. It is also logical to admit that there is a possibility of something like a god. However, there is no reason at this point to think this is a probability. Indeed, with all of the lack of evidence for the claims and promises of *all* religions, there is no reason to think that it is likely at all. Does that mean we will never find any evidence? No, but after looking desperately for several thousand years, there is no logical reason to think that we will. At any rate, what we might find is not what you worship.

        I accept the burden of proof and the above is my evidence. Now, you’ve proven that you understand that if someone makes a claim that means that *they* are the ones who have to support it. “You must show that what you are claiming is true and that your argument is logically sound. You must prove that you have done as you claim, the burden is solely on you.” You have repeatedly claimed otherwise. Why, KD? Is it that you have no evidence so are desperate to avoid being called on your lies? So much for your further lies that you have done anything to get me to understand these concepts. You are the one who has insisted that the burden of proof was not on the person making the claim. Now you claim the opposite.

        Quick and dirty logical argument
        Premise 1 – There is no evidence that supports the claims and promises of any religion known to humanity.
        Premise 2 – There is evidence that events contrary to what has been claimed by religion have happened
        Conclusion – The claims and promises of all religions known to humanity are false and thus “wrong”.

        Hmm, I’m still waiting for you to show me how something that is irrational isn’t wrong.

        I have shown that you are a liar KD, because you have claimed I have done things I haven’t *and* you are unable to provide evidence to support your claims. I have not claimed that a logical fallacy is sound and you have not shown that I have. I have shown that you are a sexist by your own words and actions. I have noted that again when I ask you direct questions about what you feel about women, you run away from the questions again claiming that you don’t have time. This is another example of a lie, when you have claimed at least twice that you don’t have time to provide evidence because you have followed those claims with posts of thousands of words. Is that enough evidence for you?

        You have also lied when you have insisted that I am not intelligent, logical or that I have not used evidence. It is amusing but it also shows that you have no idea what evidence is.

        Oh and more retroactive excuses. You said that you ignored me: “In case you were still wondering, I’m ignoring all of you requests. And suggesting you spend more time with your husband. Maybe have a few kids. Enjoy life and the beautiful mess we live in. Understand that we are all broken people and it’s okay not to be perfect. And learn that people can believe in God and not do harm. (They can even be religious or have religion)”. Now, we have you making up that the “main” reason is suddenly that my requests were “largely unrelated to the topic of the discussion”. That’s hilarious, KD. I do love how you try to salve your wounded pride by making up new reasons why it’s okay for you to refuse to support your own arguments. I have asked you question after question to get you to clarify. You asked me to do this, KD. And then you won’t answer, but declare that I am not asking questions “correctly”. What a nice dodge and what an old one.

        In that we have you, someone who has used logical fallacies repeatedly, claiming that I don’t understand logic, there are reasons to doubt your assertions. Of course we also have you attempting to leave dramatically several times and coming back each time when you don’t get the reaction you seem to want, me asking you to stay. I wonder how long it will take this time.

      • I’ll only address the part directly related to the logic you’ve used to show that all religions are wrong. I find the rest of our discussion is simply shifting the burden of proof with tangents that distract from you showing your claim true:

        Quick and dirty logic?

        Nope, just dirty. First of all it does not represent the logic posited in your original post. It may have been the underlying logic but it was not what was stated directly in your post as your post used the fallacy of the undistributed middle which was shown to you already. Secondly,your example is still a logical fallacy. You will contend against me par usual. But you are affirming a disjunct. While you did not write it in its exact form it still takes on the A or B, A, Therefore not B.

        Let me show you:

        1. There is evidence of events contrary to the claims/promises of religion (A) or there is evidence that supports the events claims/promises of religions (B).
        2. There is evidence of events that are contrary to the claims/promises of religion (A).
        3. Therefore there is “no” evidence that supports claims/promises of religion which makes them false/wrong (therefore not B).

        You will likely argue that I switched the order of your premises so your argument doesn’t fit the fallacy form but it holds true if A or B, B, Therefore not A.

        Or you might argue that your quick and dirty logic does not take on the form because you state that “there is no evidence for,” and “there is evidence against,” “therefore…” But this would then be loaded logic. In that regardless of which premise is shown true the “only” logical conclusion will be that “all religions are false/wrong.” Because either there is no evidence to support or there is only evidence to the contrary. Like I said, your logic is only dirty.

        To further explain, Premise 1 uses an argument from silence in that it presumes that upon the absence of evidence to form a conclusion: e.g., that all religions are false/wrong do to “no evidence supporting.” In Premise 2 it appears to be using the fallacy of a single clause. That the evidence that is contrary suggests that the only conclusion one can make from this is that all religion is false in what it claims/promises. (i.e., that the “only cause” for the contrary evidence is that the claims/promises of religions are false). As you believe an argument from silence to be a valid argument, please do show the logic you have used to come to this conclusion so I may consider it?

        Otherwise thanks for trying! I will stick around to address any questions or concerns you may have with my proving your argument logically fallible. You are always welcome to try and try again.

        Have a nice day. Or in other words, enjoy life.

      • It’s always good to read a post where a TrueChristian tries to use “have a nice day” as an attack. I will have a nice day, KD. I’m glad you are so concerned.

        Yep, KD, “quick and dirty logic”. It’s great that you whine about that phrase but still can’t show my logic to be wrong. It’s even funnier when you get in a snit when I say all religions are wrong, but you yourself have said that religion is wrong. Or are you now defining religion as the belief, actions and attitudes of someone who believes in divine beings/force like I did when I wrote the initial post about religion being wrong?

        I do love how you pick and choose what to respond to in my posts. It does a lovely job of showing circumstantial evidence that you can’t answer anything else because you still have no evidence and/or that you know your responses will damn you further. It’s nice that you claim that *you* find anything that you don’t like to be the shifting of the burden of proof. Again, I have seen that you know what the burden of proof is and who has it, and I have seen that you avoid it when you have no evidence. How sweet! Alas, KD, I have already shown my claims true. You have yet to show them false.

        My quick and dirty tautology does represent the logic from my first post. You of course, cannot show otherwise, you simply try to gainsay me. However, if you can, show me what you think was the supposedly directly stated logic posited in my post.

        Oh, so my logic has a fallacy in it? Which one, KD? How are my premises wrong, KD? What does “affirming a disjunct” mean, KD?  Now, we can see what this is from the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct Show me how my tautology follows this. Here is my Q&D tautology:
        Premise 1 – There is no evidence that supports the claims and promises of any religion known to humanity.
        Premise 2 – There is evidence that events contrary to what has been claimed by religion have happened
        Conclusion – The claims and promises of all religions known to humanity are false and thus “wrong”.

        The reason that this is not in the “exact” form of your fallacy is because it is not a fallacy, KD. It’s hilarious to watch you directly try to rewrite what I wrote so it does fit a fallacy. How pathetically transparent. You see, KD, there is no “or” found anywhere in my writing, so your claim is a lie based on your attempt at creating a strawman argument to attack. I don’t have to mention that you switched order or anything silly like that. I just have to show that you altered my argument to fit your fantasy.
        As soon as you can find some evidence to support the claims of religion, you just go ahead and show them here.

        Ohh, and a new term “loaded logic”. So, what does that mean, KD? I do love how you are horrified that some logical arguments can come to a single conclusion. Yep, that’s what happens in logic, one gets a answer that make sense if the premises are valid. That’s what makes it so useful.
        And golly, you whining about the argument from silence again. Pity that you still don’t understand that arguments from silence can be valid. Still waiting for any evidence to show that my premises aren’t valid, KD. It’s also great that you must claim that my second premises “appears” to be the fallacy of a single clause. So, what other conclusions can we come to, KD? For your claim to work, there must be other conclusions. Or are you just making nonsense up to try to cast doubt for no reason? I’ve shown you repeatedly why arguments from silence can work. I will present the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence so you can read it and not delay things by your claimed ignorance.

        Aw, you’ll stick around? Good, that means you have plenty of time to answer questions that you have refused to answer because of your supposed lack of time. Or was that a false statement too, KD?

      • Wow, you really take comments to mean what you want them to mean don’t you? Well, unfortunately Vel comments have an array of meaning and you’ve shown that you do not interpret them correctly. Shame really, as you sound intelligent when you take things out of context to use any argument you can come up with to your supposed advantage…

        Here is you quick and dirty logic in play. (Again, we must understand that additional evidence may become known but this as always is a thought exercise)

        Premise 1: There is no evidence to support the claim that Malaysia Flight 370 has crashed.
        Premise 2: There is evidence to the contrary of the claim that Malaysia Flight 370 has crashed.
        Conclusion 1: Therefore, Malaysia Flight 370 has not crashed.

        So again, I use analogy to show you your argument so you hopefully can see the reason why it is not logically sound.

        Vel, the burden of responsibility is for me to support my claims. But the point of my examples is that you continually shift the burden of proof from you having to prove your claims.

        I already showed you the logic you used directly in your original post. Where you committed the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Simply because you don’t like it when someone shows you’ve committed a logical fallacy doesn’t mean they have the burden of proof to prove your logic false. You still have the burden to prove your logic true.

        Otherwise you’re just whining that “I don’t have to prove my argument, you have to prove it false.” It’s a shameful practice that many atheists suffer.

        Now, from the fallacy of undistributed middle, you must show that everything that is wrong is illogical/irrational or in the least that everything illogical/irrational is wrong. This cannot simply be presumed true and it is not my burden to show something illogical/irrational right, that would be shifting the burden of proof off of your claim. You must also show that everything found in religion is not only illogical/irrational but wrong otherwise your claim is not distributed and thus invalid.

        For your “quick and dirty” logic. Since you cannot prove something that has no evidence for, even though some conclusions may “appear” more logical than others given our current knowledge and understanding of things that have been observed it does not mean a reasonable conclusion must be true. You must show how your conclusion IS true based on the absence of evidence. And when you make the claim that there is evidence to the contrary, you have the burden of showing that what you find as contrary evidence supports your claim that “all religions are false, thus wrong.”

        You must defend the evidence you are using to make your claim. What is surprising is that it has taken me this long to explain all of this to you. If you look at your original response to my first comment we see you from the start trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. That you expect me to provide evidence that a religion is right to prove your claim that all religions are wrong is false. Again, I hope you are beginning to see more clearly that you have done this from the start.

        You continue to try and distract and make arguments unrelated to you showing that your claim is true. It seems you do not accept the responsibility that you claim to accept with the burden of proof.

        Yes, in your argument there is no “or,” but there is a disjunct in the wording. No evidence in premise 1 and evidence to the contrary in premise 2. This IS a disjunct Vel. I re-worded your argument only to provide better wording that you failed at. Unless you would like to explain how there can be “no evidence” and “evidence to the contrary” simultaneously. The simple statement that “there is no evidence” cannot be used to claim support or to the contrary of a claim (as with your logic)…that is why it is an argument from silence. I love how you just provide the link and are like “you just figure it out, but I swear it *can* be valid.” Yes, an argument from silence can be valid but the one making the argument must show that it IS valid not simply presume it to be true.

        If however there is evidence it is generally presumed to be supportive or be contrary to a claim. Which is what I showed in re-wording your argument. But you still must show that how based off of premise 2 that your conclusion is true. That the evidence to the contrary does show all claims of religions false, thus wrong.

        I may or maynot, if I find the time or not, to review and consider the remainder of your replies. In such a way that there may or may not be a response in the near future or present depending on the perspective of any possible rendering of said response to your comments and the ignorance there within. If for whatever reason I decide not to or to, it should not be presumed by you to mean anything other than that I have not or have chosen to respond.

        When I said have a nice day, it’s not as you claim. I was simply showing you the correlation between the phrase have a nice day and enjoy life. You again took it out of context to show you what the original comments meaning.

      • Hmmm, so now “comments have an array of meanings” per KD. Amazing, KD, so how do we know what each other is saying at any given time? It seems, as always, you are making up nonsense to excuse your ineptness and lies. To claim that comments have an array of meanings says that comments can have many different meanings despite context. It’s just the usual excuse of a TrueChristian when caught in nonsense of their own making. If someone says “hey, you’re wrong”, you just claim that you are “really” right, and that the reader is the one who is mistaken, not the writer who has written what he has chosen to say.

        Aw, and more personal attacks to attempt to claim that I am not intelligent. Good for you, KD! Please do show where I have taken your comments out of context, KD. Again, I have quoted you directly and have linked to your entire posts so anyone can see the context that exists.

        Back to quick and dirty tautology. You have yet to show that the premises are wrong and thus the result is wrong. It’s great to see you fail to make an analogous argument to the one I actually used and use a strawman argument in its place. Isn’t it so much easier to argue against something entirely different than the actual argument? Then you don’t have to do any hard work or admit that you are wrong.

        I’ll put up my actual argument again so you can see it one more time:
        Premise 1 – There is no evidence that supports the claims and promises of any religion known to humanity.
        Premise 2 – There is evidence that events contrary to what has been claimed by religion have happened
        Conclusion – The claims and promises of all religions known to humanity are false and thus “wrong”.

        And yours:
        Premise 1: There is no evidence to support the claim that Malaysia Flight 370 has crashed.
        Premise 2: There is evidence to the contrary of the claim that Malaysia Flight 370 has crashed.
        Conclusion 1: Therefore, Malaysia Flight 370 has not crashed.

        The problem with your attempt to claim that these are the same argument is that it’s been two weeks or so since the plane crash, and we know that planes crash. In the argument against religion, it’s been millennia that humans have been looking for evidence and have found none. There is nothing to indicate that the beliefs of religions are true, and there are thousands of religions that fail in exactly the same way. Oh and dear, there is no evidence to the contrary that 370 did not crash. Again, it seems you have no idea what evidence is, and make up your own definition for that term.

        Thought experiments only work if the concepts are similar. You want to compare a plane and the claims of religion. It is no surprise that you can’t actually show that my argument is not logically sound though you claim so. You again try to put the onus on me to prove your baseless claim. Explain to me why you think my argument is not logically sound, KD. You can keep playing pretend that I am stupid and that you have to explain everything to me. If you can, of course, and this isn’t just one more attempt to throw shit at a wall and hope that some of it will stick.

        Why yes, KD, the burden of responsibility is for you to support your claims. Just like you said “Vel, the burden of responsibility is for me to support my claims.”Thank you for finally admitting that. So get to work. I’ve been waiting for quite a while now. And again, more lies, KD. Tsk. I have supported my claims with evidence. I have showed where you have lied, KD. I have shown where you have made baseless claims with no evidence. You have made similar claims about me, e.g. that I have used logical fallacies, and you have failed to provide evidence for such things. You have claimed that your god exists, that it has done special favors for you aka miracles, and again, you cannot show this to be the case. Show me where I have shifted the burden of proof, KD. Again, I ask for quotes from me that support this claim of yours. You have been unable to provide such quotes in the past, claiming that I should be able to see them if I were only intelligent enough.

        No, KD, you have not shown the logic I used in my original post. You made up your own version of what you hoped I used in my original post and then attacked that. I have already shown how you did that, KD. I showed you that your claim of me using the fallacy of the undistributed middle failed. You claimed not to understand my explanation and I told you that I had done the best I could. I am sorry if you can’t understand. It’s great that you have taken the time to attempt to rewrite my arguments to fit your claims: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-a-christian-commenter-comes-slinking-back-and-a-question-why-believe-one-and-not-the-others/#comment-2994 but that doesn’t make your rewritings what I said. I have also proven my logic true since there is no evidence to think that any religions are true. This means that if religions are not demonstrably true, they are false aka “wrong”. I still am waiting for you to show me that any religions are true. Where is that evidence that will show my premises invalid, KD? Here we go again: KD, you have made the positive claim that I am wrong. Since it is your claim, then it is your burden to support that claim. You know, ““Vel, the burden of responsibility is for me to support my claims.”

        Ah, one more lie. No, KD, I have not said anything like ““I don’t have to prove my argument, you have to prove it false.” I have supported my argument. I am still waiting for you to support yours and show that my evidence is false.

        I do love this “Now, from the fallacy of undistributed middle, you must show that everything that is wrong is illogical/irrational or in the least that everything illogical/irrational is wrong. This cannot simply be presumed true and it is not my burden to show something illogical/irrational right, that would be shifting the burden of proof off of your claim. You must also show that everything found in religion is not only illogical/irrational but wrong otherwise your claim is not distributed and thus invalid.”

        Hmmm, well, let’s look at the definition of the word “wrong”, KD. We both speak English fairly well so to understand each other we have to agree on definitions of words or language becomes meaningless. Words don’t have an “array of meanings” in context. They have exact meanings in context. Wrong, in the context of my argument means “the state of being mistaken or incorrect”. Since religions cannot show that their claims are valid, reflected in reality, there is no reason to believe them. Their claims of events and existences of gods have counter evidence against them, for example the ludicrous myth of a world wide flood can be shown that it cannot have happened but other events did in the same time period that Christians, Jews and Muslims want to pretend such a thing happened. In the time periods that believers claim, we have nothing but the usual geologic processes, no meters deep uniform flood deposit layer over the entire earth. So, as you asked for, here is evidence that religions are wrong in their claims and counter evidence supporting that.

        Contradictory events cannot happen at the same time, e.g. Kennedy can’t have been killed and not killed on 18:30 UTC, November 22, 1963. It’s the same for belief in gods and fairies. If there is evidence against an omnipotent being doing anything e.g. magical flood, making man from clay, resurrecting a man/god who vanishes into the sky, and if there is evidence against little winged people living in the bottom of my garden, there is no reason to think that belief in them is anything but wrong. Let me ask you, KD: If I believe in something that is not demonstrably true, is my belief wrong? Are those who believe that Queen Elizabeth 2 is reptilian alien wrong? The J/I/C god has attributes that can be tested, KD, and that god has no evidence for it and there is plenty against it. You can of course make your god a vague “force” but that isn’t the god that you claim will save you and destroy everything that disagrees with it. The bible becomes no more than a book of ancient cultural practices and myths, and Jesus becomes no more real than Aladdin’s genie.
        No, KD, I still am not agreeing with you and your false claims. I have not been doing anything you have claimed “from the start”. This is again you trying to bully me into agreeing with you by making vague baseless claims. And I do love when you insist that any evidence brought by me is an attempt to distract poor ol’ KD. It’s the usual claim of someone who has made arguments and who cannot support them with counter evidence.

        And here with another attempt to throw shit at a wall with no actual evidence. Show me this “disjunct”, KD. I am glad that you did admit that my argument does not follow what you claimed it did. You are right, there *is* no “or” in what I said and thus your claim fails. You claim you reworded my argument to “provide better wording that you failed at”. Which is funny since I said exactly what I meant. In that you found you had to change what I said, it shows that you didn’t want to address what I actually said. “Better wording” is only wording that KD needed to set up his strawman. There can be no evidence for a flood and evidence to the contrary easily, KD. I showed that above when I talked about the layers of earth and rock being normal where a flood supposedly happened. Floods leave very distinctive deposites, KD. Here’s another example. I say that there is a dragon the size of a Greyhound bus in my garage. Now, there is no evidence of this dragon. You can’t see it, you can’t smell it, you can’t touch it. There is counter evidence against this dragon’s existence too. My garage is 15 feet by 15 feet. It is filled with a car plus sports equipment, gardening tools, etc. A dragon the size of a Greyhound bus could not fit in there. Thus, there can be no evidence for the dragon as described and there can be counter evidence against it. And no, KD, again, you lie when you claim that I said “you just figure it out but I swear it”. I have given a link and explained it. You have repeatedly claimed that an argument from silence is never valid, so I am happy to see you say this now “Yes, an argument from silence can be valid but the one making the argument must show that it IS valid not simply presume it to be true.” Congrats for telling the truth. Now, since I have shown that it valid repeatedly, you’ve shown yourself to have been making false accusations repeatedly against me.

        Aw, and now more claims of not having time to actually address my comments. I do enjoy that, KD. More baseless claims that my comments are “ignorant”. I am glad that you have admitted that it is completely your choice to respond or not. It’s not my answers or my actions at all that force poor ol’ KD into not giving the evidence he has promised again and again. It’s is cute that you insist that no one can presume anything other than what you claim. Alas, it doesn’t work that way, KD. We can use a variation on the classic argument from silence on why you refuse to present evidence for your claims. If one can reasonably expect a source to mention an event or support an event, and they don’t, what would be there reasons why they would not do this? This of course depends on the author’s, you, intentions: “An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.” It seems that you can be expected to have the information since you have claimed to have it, and it certainly seems that it was important enough for you to claim to have to base your arguments on it. You may have not ever intended to give a complete account, for what could be various reasons. Those reasons could include, but are not limited to; the evidence does not exist; you hoped I would accept your claims without evidence and never thought you would have to present it and have not collected it; you realize how poor the evidence is and are reluctant to allow anyone to see what you think is valid because it can open up other problems. The reasons you *have* given are that you have no time to do so; that I should do the research for you because the evidence is out there if I am intelligent enough to find it; that my questions aren’t worth a “dignified” response. One can draw conclusions from all of this. They may or may not be true but they are based on facts, not your demand that no one actually consider your reasons.

      • Vel, I will apologize. The original intent of my being here was to listen and hear what you had to say regarding your beliefs and claims made in your original post. I have been trying diligently to get you to provide your reasoning, your case, your evidence for the conclusions you have made.

        From the start of our conversation you have practically been doing the opposite of defending your position by attacking mine or requesting that I defend my own position. So, it seems we have gravely gotten off on the wrong foot. For that reason I am sorry.

        I respect you, even if you choose not to respect me. It’s who I’ve become as a result of knowing Christ.

        I am also sorry for taking stabs at your intelligence. I’ve never doubted that you have some intelligence, but as you have taken my comments personally, I apologize for them.

        Unlike you believe, I was never here to “convert you” or “prove the existence of god” which only seems to be what you want me to try and do. Well, that and show you where you’ve made logical fallacies and what not. I was here to find out what and why you believe the things you do, why you have the attitude you have against all religions, why you became an atheist, etc. To learn what you know and why someone should believe you when you claim that gods do not exist.

        Take a picture of a tree. When I came here all there was was the trunk of the tree. My presence was to follow the trunk down into the roots of the tree that causes the growth. What I’ve experienced is that all you want to do is shove outward towards the branches which are a result of the tree growing out from the roots. In this much, I have failed in doing what I set out to do.

        Vel, all you are requesting me to do is to cut off the branches. For that reason, I’ll pass.

      • It’s not much of an apology if it’s based on false claims, KD. You did not come here to “listen and hear” what I had to say. You came to tell me I am wrong. I do get tired of you trying to retcon what you did and shift the blame onto me. Politicians do this all of the time, insisting that any comment made by them was fine but it was the audience who is at fault. If you were just here to listen and hear what I say, you could have read my posts and that would have been it. But you chose not to do that. You chose to try to tell me that I was wrong in my argument that religion was wrong and harmful. You tried to tell me that atheism was a religion. You tried then to tell me how great your god was by claiming it did a miracle for you. None of this is just you innocently being here to listen and hear what you [I] said regarding your [my] beliefs and claims” in the original post. I can post the link to that original post and one can see just what your posts say: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-again-why-speak-out/ of course no one except you and I care about what you’ve posted for months.

        I have provided my reasoning, my case and my evidence repeatedly, and it’s hilarious that you again make false claims about me, KD. Your diligence did work but you didn’t like the answers you got.

        It is only you trying to make believe that I have somehow done the “opposite of defending your [my] position”. I do wonder how attacking your claims and requiring you to prove your claims is the opposite of defending my position. Please do enlighten me on how that works. It seems that you started the discussion by saying I was wrong. I requested you to show me how and provide evidence. I got the excuses that you didn’t have time and that you were ignoring my requests.

        I do not care if you claim to respect me, KD. I do not need or want the respect of someone who would lie about me and to me. Your respect was made worthless by your actions. I do like how you are doing your best to try to take the high ground in this and trying to cast me as the villain. Jesus Christ was written to have some good ideas. He said that lying wasn’t good, and I agree with that. We have seen that you aren’t quite the follower of JC as you claim to be. This JC also had some rather nasty ideas, that everyone has to worship it or be killed, and had some ideas that never occurred, like him resurrecting and coming back. Many Christians claim that they know Christ and know what he wants. You folks don’t agree much on that. One of the best examples of how you didn’t agree is dead now, Fred Phelps. And even he was thrown out of his own church because those after didn’t agree with him. There are a lot of good people who are Christians and their Christ is in their image, not the other way around.

        You have had many times to stop taking stabs at my intelligence. I called you on it and you kept going. An apology now is too little too late and I do love the qualifier you still must use, “I’ve never doubted that you have some intelligence.” And oh my, I took your attacks personally. Yep, I did since you attacked me personally. It seems that you are again trying avoid responsibility, KD, and trying to blame me for being insulted when you made baseless claims about me. Oy, what a Christian.

        You were here to tell me I was wrong, KD. You tried to claim that atheism was a religion. You then presented a story about how your god did a miracle for you. I showed you how there was no reason to think your god did anything, much less exist, and I pointed out that claiming that your god got you a ring was pitiful when this god evidently can’t do anything about real problems. You claimed that your god exists and that other gods exist. I asked you to prove it since your argument that your claims are true is based on that premise. You haven’t. You have claimed I have made logical fallacies and you have failed to show this. I have asked you to quote me directly and you have been unable or unwilling to and have attempted to rewrite my arguments to fit the logical fallacies you want to pretend I have used.

        You have made positive claims and have yet to provide evidence to support your claims, KD. You have continually claimed that the burden of proving your claims is mine which is always worth a laugh, especially when you occasionally do admit that it is your burden of proof to prove your claims.

        You can see exactly what I believe and my history if you read this blog. What I write is what I mean, with no attempt to hide behind claims that what I write has many different meanings. Of course I can screw up the grammar and miswrite occasionally and when that is pointed out I correct it.

        As soon as you can provide some evidence that gods do exist, that will be great, KD. As it stands with your lack of evidence, there is no reason to believe that gods exist any more than there is reason to believe that fairies exists, Santa Claus flies around in a airborne sleigh and fits down chimneys, or that Queen Elizabeth 2 is a reptilian alien. I’d be happy to believe in gods, life would be more interesting if they actually existed. Indeed, I like to play clerics when I play D&D because it’s nice to think that some magical being is looking out for me and will allow me to help others. But there is no evidence for your god, your Jesus Christ or any other god. It would be as silly for me to believe in your god with no evidence as it would be to believe in Sekhmet, the Krampus, or the aliens supposedly behind Comet Hale-Bopp.

        The entire tree was here the whole time, KD. If you read my blog, you would have known all you supposedly wanted to know, without insisting that I was wrong and you were right. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for any gods or magical forces. As much as you seem to want to fantasize that there was some traumatizing event that caused me to become an atheist, or more hilariously that my husband caused me to become an atheist, there is none. It’s the simple lack of any evidence whatsoever. It’s the ridiculous bible that has such primitive and vile acts by a supposed perfect god, nothing more than the fantasies of a people who wanted to pretend they were somehow “chosen”. It’s the actions of believers like you who do all they can to avoid providing the evidence they claim to have in support of their religion.

        I am requesting you to provide evidence for your claims about me and about your religion. You refuse again. How terribly unsurprising.

      • Believe what you want Vel. But it doesn’t make what you believe true.

        My apology is sincere and I do take responsibility for allowing the conversation to diverge to this point. I have no reason to lie to you or about you. If you choose to believe that I have you cannot blame me, you have made this choice in your reading of my comments. I am not innocent by any means, but I am not the only guilty party, I hope you understand that.

        Yes, I have chosen not to provide evidence for many of my comments but that does not make them false, or lies, or whatever else you try and tell yourself. You seem to take criticism or that possibility that you could be wrong very personally. Thus you attack.

        You also seemed to take my original comment as questioning you as if you were wrong and not as an opportunity to express your beliefs further. Remember, you chose from the start to try and put the burden on me to prove a religion right to prove your claim that all are wrong false, you have constantly attempted and still are trying to shift the burden and the blame onto me. For whatever reason you continue to do this I cannot understand. The case of my original comments again is your interpretation of what was said not necessarily what was intended. Apparently, you seem to think it is impossible that you have formed a wrong conclusion about me and still believe your version of our conversation and cannot look at it another way. I find that shameful.

        I don’t fantasize that there was some traumatic event that caused you to become an atheist. I truly don’t think you are much different than I (other than being older, female, and having different life experiences).

        Like I said, I don’t care what you believe about me or our conversation as it does not make what you believe or what you feel you can “prove” true. I find this sad that you would rather believe the lies you’ve created about me rather than accept my apology. Your response only reflects upon you.

      • Of course, KD. Everyone apologizes by telling the audience that it’s their fault if they were offended and it’s their fault if *you* are caught in a lie. You have lied about me and to me, KD. I have pointed out those lies repeatedly. It is not that I believe you have, I have shown that you have, you have told direct falsehoods about me and my actions. You have claimed that I have used logical fallacies and as of yet, you have not shown any quote from me to support these claims. No, KD, you have made these claims, rewritten what I have written to make it fit into your claims of logical fallacies, etc. You also try to claim that I am a “guilty party”. Well, show it, KD. Please show me that I am guilty of what you claim. I’ve been asking for evidence for months and unsurprisingly you can’t provide it at all.

        You have failed to provide any evidence for your comments. As I have noted, you are in great company with others who refuse to support their comments: conspiracy theorists of all types. In that you cannot support your claims, it does make them false and lies. But you can change that by providing evidence. There is no reason to think you can since you have used every classic excuse in order not to. As I have also pointed out, I wonder, would you believe someone who refuses to provide evidence for their claims? Would you KD? Do you believe those who claim that Queen Elizabeth 2 is a reptiloid alien just because they say so and have nothing else? Well, KD, that’s what I think of you.

        I show you are wrong because you are a liar, not because I am afraid that I could be wrong. Come on, KD, if I am wrong, show it. I’m not afraid of that at all. So again you tell a lie regarding me and I can show it to be what it is with no problem by calling you on it. But you can’t show it, can you? What old excuse will you offer why you can’t show me that I’m wrong? Hmmm, will you use the classic “if you were intelligent, you could find it yourself”? Perhaps the “I don’t have time to show you” and then continue to write thousands of words in posts intended to avoid answering questions? Such perfection.

        Why, yes, KD, I do take your claim that I am wrong as you saying I am wrong. Shocking, I know. And KD, I did take the opportunity to show you what I think and believe and I also showed that your claims were wrong. So again, your accusations fail again. No, KD, I did not choose from the start to put the burden on you to prove a religion right. At the start, I showed that you were wrong when you claimed that atheism was a religion. I noted that you found religions very negative per your own quotes on your own blog and pointed out that you seemed to need to claim atheism was a religion since you did not like religions (and claimed that your savior Jesus Christ was an antidote to religion). I asked you if you believed in other gods and thought they were as valid as yours. You said that you did believe other gods were real, though you never seemed to answer if you felt that they were as valid as a belief system as yours. Do you?

        Then you vanished for a bit and returned with a claim of a miracle to prove that your god existed. If that was not the reason you trotted out that story, then what was it? I do not recall you answering that question either, but you may have and I could be wrong. I then pointed out that it was a shame that your god could make miracles for rings but couldn’t actually help people who needed food, healing, etc.

        You are the one who made the claim that your god did a miracle, and for this to be valid, you need to prove that your god exists. I can, and have, pointed out how your purported “miracle” needs no supernatural assistance. Indeed, it seems that you need more evidence for your god than I do with your need to claim that this god has done something for you.

        It’s always great to see you again try to claim that you have no burden of proof when you make a positive claim, KD. You claimed your god existed and your god did a miracle for you. Evidence please. I have no reason to believe your claims than I have to believe that Ganesha drinks milk. I have not tried to shift the blame onto you, I am showing you that you make the claim, you support it. Poor KD, can’t support his claims so it’s someone else’s problem to prove them for him because if they can’t they aren’t “intelligent” as you have claimed about me multiple times.

        You wrote what you chose to write, KD. You intended on writing it, so claims that you didn’t “intend” what you wrote are pretty damn funny. I have again seen nothing that says you didn’t intend on telling me I was wrong in saying all religions are wrong e.g. that their claims cannot be supported, that they cause harm, though at one point they may have had some use, and that one can find what little benefit they still offer in other sources. I can write intending exactly what I mean and I do so with no trouble. Why is it only TrueBelievers who get caught in lies that insist that they are so very misunderstood? It seems that the only reason is that they don’t like when someone can counter their claims and who don’t accept what they say without question.

        Again, I have no problem in being told I am wrong if you have evidence of this. That’s not shameful at all, but it’s cute that you try to bully me again by making more false claims about me. I’m not ashamed in showing you to be the liar you have been. I know you really really hope I am but there is absolutely no reason to be. You have no evidence as usual. You only have attempts at excuses and retconning your statements when they are shown to be wrong. One of your best instances is when you have claimed you have said nothing negative about religion and I can post quotes from you saying how bad religion is and how Jesus Christ is not religion.

        You have tried repeatedly to find what made me an atheist, and have made lots of hilarious assumptions about me. I have told you it is the lack of evidence and still you came back asking if my husband was behind me being an atheist, by questioning me when I was married, when I became an atheist, etc. It is indeed circumstantial evidence but evidence nonetheless. Now, I could be wrong, and I have no problem with that. But, if you don’t care why I’m an atheist, then why the questions after I had answered? And that’s quite a list of differences, older, female, having different life experiences. I am indeed quite a bit different than you if only in that I do not accept claims without evidence.

        It is telling that you say you don’t care about what can be proven true. This means that no matter the facts offered, you will refuse to accept them to keep your claims intact. You also refuse to provide evidence which demonstrates that you think you can force people to believe you without such evidence. Again, show me where I have lied, KD. Quote me. Show me that what I have said is wrong and cite facts.

        Congrats for one more time trying to bully me by saying that “Your response only reflects upon you.” I certainly hope it does. I am quite happy to be responsible for what I say and exactly what it says. Ah, one more difference there.

      • Please do show evidence of this, KD. You’ve claimed that I haven’t understood you, haven’t understood your posts, etc. Unfortunately for you, my posts have shown that I have indeed read your posts, understood them and asked you relevant questions about them as well as posted how they fail in their claims. If your claim about me “feigning” my understanding were true, I could not have done any of that. Again, reality trumps the false claims made by you.

        Considering that your religion has no evidence to support its claims, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you have no problem with having no evidence to support your claims either.

      • KD, I do wonder if you’ve noted what has been happening on our discussion about the 1% quote. I was able to point to exactly where I said that. You claimed I did but you did take your time in actually quoting me, and that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt. Did you notice how easy it was to have evidence for something that you claim and how that makes your claim believable? Now that I know you can provide evidence if asked, there is no reason that you cannot do the same thing for all of your other claims that you have yet to support. You have been demonstrated to have plenty of time to do so with your lengthy posts here and you have been demonstrated able to find evidence for your claims.

      • KD, please do show that having a baby is a “miracle” a suspension of natural laws by a deity/force. Digestion and procreation are both natural events that depend on the same human biology. Two different systems but the same biology. Both can fail because biology is not perfect.

        As DA said, when a theist tries to claim his or her god exists by citing an natural event, it shows that they aren’t thinking very logically. This world is based on physical laws. There is no reason to think that a god controls these, and especially no reason to think that it is *your* god. Most, if not all theists, make the same claim in order to fantasize that their religion is the only right one.

        KD, you wish to claim that your god answered your prayer. And that is what most of all theists do. You take coincidence and declare it a miracle. You selectively ignore when your prayers aren’t answered, excusing your god by saying that your god’s plans somehow opposed to your desires. that’s what selection bias is and most, if not all, theists practice it to keep their beliefs intact. You conveniently ignore that your bible says that your supposed savior said that *anything* asked in his name will be given, no exceptions.

        You have to pick and choose and invent new things to explain why your god repeatedly fails. That is one of the reasons that new versions of your religion continuously pop up, when TrueChristians like you decide that you don’t like what you’ve been taught and leave your churches.

  3. Happy New Year good friend.

    The first interesting thing in this case is how would he tell the difference between his will and god’s will? He has been dating this girl for a month, he loves the girl, wants to please her and it appears the girl is responding in a similar manner.

    I don’t see any divine intervention. It is a normal progression. Boy meets girl, boy likes girl, girl loves boy and viola we are married.

  4. Pingback: Less than 0.015% chance… | The Buss Stop

  5. Ina most excellent instance of finding a TrueChristian telling something less than the truth, we have KD saying this on his own blog http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/less-than/ .

    “One other thing that I would like to comment about is that Vel gave the probability of identical rings being chosen as 1 in 100 or a 1% chance.”

    And I have not. KD is evidently lying again. I do wonder about a Christian who goes out of his way to do so. Stay tuned for the excuse that he didn’t “really” lie but was just paraphrasing me.

  6. Pingback: From the Bar – three more wines and a cocktail of our own | Club Schadenfreude

  7. Vel, if I recall correctly during our previous conversation that you told me that your blog and writing was not for acceptance or pat’s on the back…yet this entire post was about just that.

    Look at what this theist said and look at how cleverly I responded to him? For those out there looking to learn how to be like me and other atheists, this is what you should do? In other words: accept me and give me pat’s on the back.

    Not to mention that after I shared this story with you, you requested me “to comment on your newer posts so your subs could see.” Seems peculiar to me that someone who doesn’t write to “fit in with other atheists” or have “other atheists laud and praise you for what you perceive as ‘accomplishments’ in dealing with theists,” to make such a request. Wouldn’t you say? And what of the request for pingbacks and links? Seems like you just want people to visit your website more…so what they will accept you for your beliefs and give you pats on the back?

    Do I need to post a link to where you made the comment or are you able to re-read our previous conversation and find what I am referring to?

    Of course, you did find a way for me to “comment on your newer posts for your subs to see,” so I’ll give you credit for that much. Which really isn’t much since you simply moved our conversation to a new post. Not very impressive.

    • “Vel, if I recall correctly during our previous conversation that you told me that your blog and writing was not for acceptance or pat’s on the back…yet this entire post was about just that.”

      and more assumptions that are not true. Nice to see that, KD. I do enjoy when theists claim to be able to read my mind. And I “found a way” for you to post on my blog? My goodness, I am indeed so powerful to get someone to post here and they are unable to resist my superpowers!

      Yes, KD, you need to post a link if you wan to claim I’ve said something. You know, like how you claimed I said that there was exactly 1% of a chance about your ring story? Where is that quote from me, KD? I’ve asked for a link and a cut and paste and unsurprisingly you failed to provide where I ever say such a thing. It seems that you are again trying to build a strawman to attack in your blog post and you have to lie about me to do it.

  8. Pingback: People ‘Round Here | Duh'Merica

  9. No surprises here. Christians place their faith in blind chance because blind chance is how God rolls, baby! The Bible tells us that God instructed the Israelites to settle their land inheritances and select public officials by casting lots. Casting lots was how the sailors determined that it was Jonah who had brought God’s wrath aboard the ship. And casting lots was how the apostles decided who would replace Judas. In fact, even to this day the pontiff is selected by casting ballots.

    But betting on God isn’t the only game in town:

    Ornery dog leads to $1M lottery win

  10. Here’s KD’s answer to the question above:

    “As for your question regarding whether I would believe theist of a different god theory claiming the same story. The answer is YES. If someone claimed they prayed to Allah or the Wican Goddess and that god answered their prayer, I would believe them. I would not have any reason to assume that they are lying to me. I would accept that they do in fact believe their god answered their prayer.

    Would their claim change my convictions regarding my beliefs? Unlikely.

    Would I believe those gods exist? Yes.

    Would I put my faith and trust in those gods? No.

    You see, you seem to think that your question is simple and to the point. What did you expect me to say? No, I wouldn’t believe those gods exist.

    Any number of hundreds of thousands of gods could exist. That doesn’t mean all of them exist. That doesn’t mean that they are all to be trusted. And it doesn’t rule out the possibility that no gods exist. Your questions are like the 1% thing, you are trying to oversimplify to get an anticipated result with your questions.

    I’ll give you that they are very pointed questions but they are based off of your assumptions. You feel that by asking them you can show why your opponent is “wrong” thinking that by doing so makes you “right.” That is irrational and illogical. I will be surprised if you actually learn something from our conversation. As you’ve demonstrated that you haven’t yet.” http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/less-than/comment-page-1/#comment-37

    Most interesting that a TrueChristian believe in other gods and that they answers prayers just like his god. this does go against the bible, and unsurprisingly doesnt’ go against it. The bible isn’t quite sure that its god is the only one or not.

    • Yes Vel, please do explain your response to my comment further. It seems rather vague. Like you’re trying to say something at the same time you are not saying anything at all?

      Your claim is rather baseless and vague. You haven’t shown evidence or support. Simply made a claim that “the bible isn’t quite sure that its god is the only one or not.” Yet, time and time again you claim True Christians only believe in One God. So which claim is truth and which claim are you lying about?

      • Oh my. I’m sorry you don’t know what the bible says. So you make a claim that my claim is “rather baseless and vague” and then proceed not to show any evidence how.

        I can, and did show you that the bible says that there is only one god.

        Isaiah 43:10 Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
        Isaiah 44: 8 Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
        Ephesians 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
        Mark 12:32 – You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.

        The bible also says that there are many gods.

        Exodus 12:12 On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt.

        Exodous 22:20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed

        Exodous 34:14 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

        The bible doesn’t seem to be vague or baseless here, but contradictory. I have not said that TrueChristians only believe in one god. I said that TrueChristians can’t agree if there are many gods or only one god. I have said that TrueChristians can’t agree on quite a few things, including this topic.

        Which is it, KD? Are there many gods or only one god? You believe in many gods. Christians at CARM says that you are wrong and they are right: http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-many-gods-are-there-one-or-many They claim that those other gods are “false gods” and that they are simply imaginary. You say that they are real and you say that the other Christians are wrong.

        Who should I believe and why?

      • Sorry if this is another long comment.

        TWho should you believe and why?” That seems to be your conundrum Vel.

        Are you stating that the Bible seems contradictory or IS contradictory?

        I would agree with you if you state that it appears contradictory. But if you claim that it IS contradictory. Then you must provide more evidence of your claim. Because you do realize I could ask you the same question. Your interpretation of the Bible is stating one thing, mine is stating another, and still others states something else.

        So who should we believe and why?

        Or do you deny that you are claiming that you are right and everyone else who doesn’t agree with you is wrong?

        Let me ask another question. How can you be certain that your interpretation, your logic, the evidence you use is in fact the truth?

        Are you going to use another “I can be certain if you throw yourself in a ladle of molten iron you will die,” argument? Yes, there are things that you can be certain of, no one is arguing with you there. But like I’ve stated you seem to be using this argument that one can be certain of everything.

        Here’s a few more questions for you to ponder. Regarding sexual orientation, do you believe a person is born that way or that during the sexual development stages of early childhood and adolescence they make choices and encounter eroticism that leads them to conclude that is “who they are?”

        If you believe someone is born with a predetermined sexual orientation, please show me the research that supports this claim.

        Have you simply accepted the arguments being raised regarding this belief or have you actually done research on it?

        You seem to think that if something causes harm than it is wrong and must be spoken out against. That’s why you asked me to show evidence that homosexuality is harmful. It’s the same type of argument you use in your post…because some religions do not practice or allow use of modern medicine to aid in recovering from sickness or disease.

        My point was on discrimination not whether something was harmful. But let’s look at your question a little closer.

        You believe that you are justified if you are speaking out against something that causes harm. You believe logically that this is a sound conclusion. What if the logical conclusion leads someone or yourself to do harm against those you are speaking out against? Is the harm you’ve done justified because they’ve done harm?

        If you move back to the sexual orientation issue. Which I find a little interesting because it seems to be driven far more on emotion than on logic. That if one speaks out on “same sex marriage” they are bigots, closed-minded, etc. Have you noticed that most of the attacks are on what the Bible says and little is actually shown regarding what research says?

        The world is full of many sheople. Those that will only go along with something if it is a popular political or controversial trend.

        The reason it is such an interesting topic is because same-sex supporters are arguing the legality of the issue and those opposed to same-sex marriage are arguing the morality of the issue. Much like our conversation. You don’t realize that when you criticized me for the 1 in 100 comment, that I must have misinterpreted or misrepresented what you intended is exactly what you’ve done with my comments.

        Sorry I’ve been jumping back and forth so much.

        But much of your arguments are about “right vs wrong,” Very black and white thinking…which if I’m not mistaken is a logical fallacy? My worldview is very gray.

        I’m sure it would seem nice if we lived in a black and white world. That we knew what was right vs. what was wrong. What was good vs. what was evil. But we are left in this splendid world of wonder where we are trying to figure it all out. The most amazing thing about it all is that each step along the way we are either getting closer or further from the truth.

        Whether this means that there is an ultimate truth or we are creating an ultimate truth, it’s full of ups and downs and inside outs. When you step back and realize that we are all a part of it is quite remarkable.

        What you also have neglected to notice is that I state my beliefs. I do not claim other Christians are wrong. You seem to be putting words in my mouth that I haven’t spoken. You are making a claim without seeking understanding, you’ve done this repeatedly in our original conversation. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in most cases.

        One example is where you claimed that Richard Swineburne’s God is not my God. How is this not you trying to read a theists mind?

        You don’t seem to seek any actual evidence that the claim you are making is supported. That’s why your cutting and pasting fails. You believe what you’ve cut and pasted supports your argument but you don’t even clarify if what you cut and pasted actually is what you’ve interpreted it to say.

      • KD, you always make long comments. I don’t mind them at all but I am always laughing when you make them since you have claimed repeatedly that you don’t have time to actually support your false claims. Every long post makes you a liar in that aspect.

        The conundrum of “who should you believe and why” certainly isn’t mine; this conundrum that has existed forever for theists. Other than people insisting that one follow their religion/faith, there is precious little evidence that any religion/faith is true.

        The bible *seems* contradictory and *is* contradictory, KD. We have a whole industry, apologetics, that has arisen because theists known that there are contradictions and they can’t agree on how to solve those contradictions. When I posted the verses that showed that the bible says that there is only one god and that there are many gods, that was showing how the bible contradicts itself. And when I posted the link to the CARM claims about one god, which contradict your claims about many gods, that also shows that Christians contradict each other. So who should be believe and why? You or the good TrueChristians at CARM?

        I do show exactly what the bible says. I do not concern myself with trying to claim one part is literal and one part is metaphor, one part is “obviously” from humans and one part is “obviously” from God, one translation is right and another wrong. I simply show what the bible says. Its claims are diametrically opposite, and it is not me that wrote it that way. My “interpretation” is the words mean what they say, nothing else. Yep, your interpretation says they mean something else and CARM says that they mean something else again. So, my good Christian, who is right? Why should we not think that the words indeed mean exactly what they state? Let me restate, I say the words say exactly what they say and create a contradiction, you say that there are other gods, and CARM says that there are not. I can show that I am right in that there are indeed contradictory claims. What can you and CARM do?

        I am indeed certain that if you throw yourself in to a ladle of molten iron you will die. I know that the bible says exactly what it does. One can’t be certain of everything (though we are becoming more certain of things everyday), but we can be certain that the bible does say what it says. It is only when Christians want to make up other meanings do questions arise and one has to ask: “who is right, KD or CARM or any other theist who makes claims with no evidence?”

        You ask more questions. How fun and how interesting that you seem to think you can demand that I answer and that you can pick and choose what you answer.
        I do believe that people are born with their sexual orientation. That’s what the evidence points to, though social interaction and experience can also have an effect e.g. sex with another of the same sex is fun so why not keep on doing it. We don’t know absolutely what causes it *yet*. I also know that people act against what they are to try to fit into acceptable “norms”. There are more than a few people who have married the opposite sex because of expectations and then are miserable. I also know some people who claimed that they were gay because they wanted a reason that people didn’t like them other than they were just jerks. You try to claim that sexual orientation is a choice. So, KD, when did you make a choice to be exclusively heterosexual? And indeed as my husband just said at my reading your nonsense, what the fuck does it matter? He doesn’t mince words. I also believe that sexual orientation can be best demonstrated as a continuum, not a binary choice. I’ve had crushes on women and men. I just got lucky that I fell in love with a man and am not bothered by twits who want to pretend their god agrees with their baseless opinions.

        So, again, KD is wrong when he claims that I haven’t done any research on it because I’ve read the various papers on what might cause sexual orientation. KD, you’ve been given the Wikipedia link because it links or gives enough information for you to find the same research. And dear, I was not raised with believing that homosexuality is something one cannot choose. I looked at the evidence and have come to my very own conclusion. So you are wrong again which is not surprising at all.

        Wow KD, I do like that you don’t believe that one should speak out against that which causes harm. I’m sure that the Nazis would have loved you with your decision to remain silent about something that causes harm. And yep, still looking for evidence that homosexuality is harmful, KD. Surely if you believe so you can show that it does, yes? Or will you tell me to go look for the evidence since it simply must be there if KD says it is, just like those ol’ logical fallacies you accuse me of using? And please do show me how religions who don’t practice or allow the use of modern medicine aren’t harmful when they allow people to die in often very painful and miserable ways.

        Let’s see what you actually did say about discrimination: “You want to believe that you are justified to discriminate against all religions. But you turn around and condemn others if they discriminate against you or you perceive them to discriminate against you based on the fact that you are a woman. Or if they discriminate against someone who is homosexual.”

        Again, I have said that I am entirely justified to discriminate against something that is demonstrably harmful, like religion. I do indeed condemn others, like you, who discriminate against me or others if they have no evidence of their claims. Your statement above indicates that I should not discriminate against those who say that homosexuality is wrong, which would lead me to believe that *you* do find it wrong because you don’t want me to say you are wrong. You claim that I have supposedly done harm in speaking out against people who have no evidence for their claims. Okay, KD, what is that harm? You want to claim it, then show it. My position that twits who say homosexuals are evil, damned, the cause of soldiers’ deaths, etc are liars and ignorant is supported by facts. I would say the same about Nazis opinions about Jews and again my position is supported by facts. I’m sorry if you don’t like facts and how they show you are wrong. If you consider that “harm”, then that is fine with me. I have no problem in “harming” in that way. I am proud of it.

        Yep, if you say that people can’t get married because you don’t like it, that makes you a bigot: you don’t want them to have the same rights as you because they are different from you. The bible says that if one doesn’t have the “right” kind of sex, then one should be killed. The “right” kind of sex, according to the bible is between husband and wife, or sex with captured virgins or of a sold daughter, with the desires of the woman not important at all.
        Again, to quote my husband ‘What the fuck does it matter if it’s a choice or not?” Just like I don’t care what you believe as long as it doesn’t hurt me or anyone else, I don’t care what consenting adults do as long as it harms no one else. I’ve shown that religion causes harm. Again, show that relationships other than strict heterosexuality per the bible causes harm. I’m more than willing to consider it. I’m also more than willing to show your research wrong if I find it to be. You see, KD, I know most, if not all of the supposed “research” touted by TrueChristians about homosexuality. I know how silly most, if not all of it, is.

        Now your question if I have noticed that most of the attacks are on what the bible says about it is a good one. I have noticed that and again Christians can’t agree on what the bible “really” says. We have some Christians sure that homosexuality is perfectly fine and we have some Christians who say it isn’t. Again, who should we believe and why? I do love how you refer to people as “sheople” if they go along with something that is a popular political or controversial trend. Seems that you are as much “sheople” as anyone else, KD. I’m also guessing that you want to use that to claim why atheism is more acceptable now, that it’s people who only are following and who aren’t making their own conclusions.

        No, KD, the supporters of same sex marriage aren’t only arguing the legality of the issue. They are also arguing the morality of the issue and their morals don’t agree with yours. You have yet to show that I have misinterpretd or misrepresented you with any evidence of such.

        Again, more baseless comments. Show me where I offered black and white thinking, aka a false dilemma.

        I wonder, how is your worldview “very gray” when you believe in a absolutely good god? It seems by definition, Christianity is a black and white worldview, anything god says is good, anything that is against that is evil. Or is this not what you believe, KD? And unsurprisingly, you use an old theist excuse that is essentially that your god can be black and white but us humans can’t know what is “really” good and “really” evil since we don’t know your god’s mysterious plan. I always find that disgusting, in that you think that there is *any* excuse for a magical being that supposedly can do anything to allow harm to come to anyone, especially those who believe in it.

        There is nothing remarkable about how things change. Again, no magical being needed at all.

        KD, I have not neglected to notice what when you state your beliefs, you * do claim other Christians are wrong. Again, I’ll quote you from your own blog post: “It takes time and effort to understand the Bible. I see a lot of people who misuse the Bible as a source to preach their message of intolerance (i.e., religion).” http://thebussstop.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/who-do-you-follow/

        Again, your claim that I am somehow putting words in your mouth is false. I also have a lovely screen shot of your claim above that shows how you think you know that other Christians are wrong in their use of the bible. I have made the claim and I have supported it with a fact, your very own words. But, please do tell me what you “really” meant and why I should not think that your claim that others misuse the bible, in the context of a post on how you think people should follow Jesus, should not be read as you thinking that other Christians are wrong.

        Richard Swineburn’s god as described is not the god you describe, KD. We can see that from what I wrote “Richard Swineburne did write “Is there a God?” And like many apologetic books, it does address the problem of an omniscient/omnipotent god. I do enjoy his version since he, like so many TrueChristians, does his best to conveniently depower this god. The all-powerful and all-knowing god in the bible is inconvenient so those words simply must not be true, and the magic decoder ring comes out again so one can “carefully understand” this god, aka my intepretation is the right one and all others aren’t, don’t bother asking for evidence. He says that this god is described as having true free will, but then goes into the usual TrueChristian nonsense about how omnipotent and omniscient don’t “really” meant all-powerful and all-knowing. This god becomes only kinda all powerful and all knowing, and that does become a lovely oxymoron, like something being kinda sterile or kinda pregnant. This god now must makes sense to humans or it cannot exist. Swineburne decides that this god can’t know the future because it’s not “logical’ but golly this god can make prophecies? And the the bible says directly this god does future repeatedly. Again, we see Christians disagreeing on what their god is, what their god can do, if we have free will or not, and having no evidence to support their claims.

        At least Swineburne does admit that his claims are not the usual Christian or Jewish ones. He goes on to use very old and very bad arguments to claim that his god exists. God is supposedly a simple answer so God must exist? Well, that’s nice if you can show that it’s the Christian god and Swineburne is indeed only talking about that one. I personally find the concept of god and gods to be quite complicated. Which god? How do you tell? Which story is right? None have to be right but all could be wrong. Alas for Swineburne, Ockham’s razor isn’t always correct though he certainly tries to pretend it is.

        Then he goes onto try to claim that since science doesn’t know everything, therefore God must exist. “These are phenomena clearly too big for science to explain.” Yeesh. And this is supposedly “one of the most distinguished philosophers of religion today”. There is no scientific reasoning in his book contrary to what the blurb claims. Scientific reasoning is from observation and evidence. Claiming that a being that has no evidence for it, no evidence for any actions and no evidence for a need for it is not relying on the scientific method. It’s also great to watch him claim that it can only be the Christian god, and not any others. Wow. He’s also sure that there is a soul, and of course cannot show that to be true. If there is a soul, then why does harm to the physical body change people? Or are souls something else than *us* and what we are now isn’t what we’ll be in some “heaven”? I don’t know if you’ve actually read this book, KD, but Swineburne’s god is not yours.

        I don’t need to read your mind because I can read your posts, KD. Unless you want to claim that nothing you wrote means what it says, I do know what you consider your god to be and I know how that disagrees with what Swineburne wrote. If your posts don’t mean what they say, there is a problem. Then no one can understand you at all, KD and your posts are essentially gibberish. However, I don’t think that is what you are going for in this claim. I think you want to claim that I am misunderstanding you so you can abdicate responsibility for your errors.

        It’s great to see you claim that I “don’t seem to seek any actual evidence that the claim you [I] is supported.” Ah yes, KD, ignore all of those links, cut and pastes, etc. You claim that I have not clarified that what I have cut and pasted is actually what I have interpreted it to say. And there we have it folks, the TrueChristian has created a bit of infinite regression, where no matter what is said, the TrueChristian will not accept it because I can’t cite every possible reference for it going back to infinity. This is the best, KD. Because I can’t show you everything related to the subject, even though I’ve shown you lots of evidence, then your god exists. What a lovely little god that you’ve created. I will have to say that you are getting closer to Swineburne’s depowered god that you can hide in a sack.

      • Funny you would think I’m referring to “Christian research.” Have you actually reviewed the research that is being done regarding showing evidence that homosexuality has a genetic predisposition.

        Rather good stuff if you find the topic of interest.

        This of course is focusing on finding a biological connection. Completely ignores any environmental or stages of sexual development as reasons for ones sexual preference.

        You must think very lowly of me. Apparently you regard me as someone who will only listen to what other theists have to say and not what science has to say. Shame on you for such a faulty assumption. You’ve read my blog and know that I’ve used (or as you would likely state misused) scientific evidence in my posts.

        While you were right about one thing, I could always research more…I’m working on that. Like I said, I’ve never really been big on the whole research thing, but it might come in handy.

        What you might be mistaken by is that if I form a conclusion that fits with what other Christians think than I must not have done my own objective review of it. Pity. Like your assumption that I was going to blame your husband for you becoming an atheist. My guess is he played his part but from what I know of you and of him, you seem very capable of doing your own research and forming your own conclusions with out the need of your husband telling you what to think. Unless, your question was a Freudian slip and you blame him?

        I just noticed the part about infinite regression. Funny how you think only theists do this because you do it as well. You do think that you’ve interpreted what is said correctly. Just as I think I’ve interpreted what you said correctly. You don’t accept my claims because I cannot cite every possible reference going back to infinity either. This is a good explanation of why I haven’t cut and pasted upon your request, That I was trying to avoid infinite regression of our dialogue…E.g., the whole 1 in 100 debacle.

        Hmm, I suspect you will find some reason why you don’t agree with me about something I said??? Rather than trying to clarify what is being said…

        Any takers?

      • Since I have actually researched the topic of homosexuality and its causes, yes, KD, I have “actually reviewed the research”.

        Yes, biologists are looking for a biological connection. Anthropolgists/sociologist are looking for environmental factors, etc. What a surprise… There is plenty of research for other causes. As I have indicated already, from my review of the research, it seems that genetics is the foremost component with environment as very likely influence. You mention “stages of sexual development”. Can you explain this idea to me? It seems that it might be indicating that you think that somehow homosexuality is less developed than heterosexuality? I know that Freud came up with something similar and seems to have been mostly, if not entirely, shown to be wrong. It seems a common bit of nonsense that theists try to use to explain on how superior and “normal” heterosexuality is.

        I think very lowly of you because you’ve continually lied, KD. That’s all that was needed. I’ve seen your blog and I ‘ve seen you try to claim that science supports the nonsense of the creation myth. This does not make me think you are too observant of what science supports.

        So, KD, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Surely you remember if it’s a conscious choice which you seem to believe it is.

        No, KD, I do not think you haven’t done your own research. What I think is that you may have cherry picked research that confirms what you think. I see that all of the time with theists, mostly around the subjects of geology and physics. Biology does come into when the nonsense of Adam and Eve, two of every animal, virgin births are involved.

        So, you aren’t going to blame my husband for my atheism? Then why was it so important to you to know if I became an atheist before or after I was married? You are so wrong again. No, KD, my husband had nothing to do with my coming to the conclusion that there are no gods. In fact, he held on to his belief in gods longer than me. And aw, another hopeful question desperate to find out something to help your cause. “Unless your question was a Freudian slip and you blame him?” ROFL. You do that a lot. More of that “but I didn’t directly accuse you of it so I’m not responsible” nonsense.

        I know I’ve interpreted your posts correctly because I can support my position. You? Not so much. No evidence that I’ve made logical fallacies. Getting everything but one single point in your analysis of me utterly wrong. And you lie again, KD. I have never said that I require evidence back to infinity and I have no problem if you can support your claims one,maybe two, steps back. Just show those logical fallacies I’ve done, that only requires a cut and paste one step back. So your claim that I don’t accept your claims because I cannot cite every possible reference going back to infinity either is a lie. Good going!

        I’ve been clarifying all along with my evidence citations. I have plenty of reasons not to agree with you and evidence to back them up. I won’t be quiet just to salve your feelings. You should know that by now and not think you can guilt me into being silent.

      • From your review of the research regarding “genetics is the foremost component.” Is your conclusion from the twin studies, the correlation studies, the studies that have been unable to be duplicated, or another study that I might not be familiar with?

        I do like when you think you know what I’m referring to. At least you’ve asked a question to clarify. No, I’m not saying that homosexuals are less developed than heterosexuals or that heterosexuality is superior or “normal” comparatively.

        I guess when I state stages of sexual development, I’m mostly referring to environmental or social factors that are involved during our psycho-sexual stages of development. It’s not a reference to underdevelopment but rather environmental and social factors lead to the development of our sexual orientation. It’s also not a reference to the research that tried to suggest homosexuals had early childhood trauma or abuse occur. Or that there must be something “abnormal” in the sexual development of homosexuals.

        I stated the “stages” as I believe there are stages or ages where environmental or social influences play a greater role on our sexual development than at other stages or ages. It’s looking at environmental and social influences during normal sexual development. This may be what anthropologists and sociologist look at already, but I haven’t seen all the research to know if it is?

        To answer your question regarding when I chose to be heterosexual. It was in junior high. I remember it very well.

        No, I wasn’t going to blame your husband. It was curiosity. It’s not wrong to assume that spouses influence one another’s decisions. Married people discuss their thoughts and beliefs with one another all of the time. So while you say he had no influence over your decision, that’s likely not entirely true. His belief may have made it more difficult for you to come to your conclusion. Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down you’re rocking the boat; if you will. Although, he may also have been entirely supportive of your decision, which would have made your conclusion easier or less straining on your marriage. Either way I’m hard pressed to believe your decision was made entirely independent or devoid of your husbands influence. And I never believed he was the crux for your atheism.

        You’re right, I do ask a lot of indirect questions. I’ll work on that.

      • KD, it’s great when you ask more and more questions because you don’t like the answers you get. My conclusion that genetics is an important part of sexuality with environment being also influential is from all of the research I have done looking at studies on the effect of genetics on sexual preference. Which studies have been unable to be duplicated, KD? I do expect you to actually cite things and not make more vague claims in your attempts to bolster your nonsense. I would suggest looking at the link for sexuality and genetics on Wikipedia that has a good list of experiments and their criticisms. We have genetic influence and the environment in the womb seems to again work on those genetics. I find the most interesting of these to be the new epigenetic studies, which also link genetics and environment since nothing exists in a vacuum. It’s also interesting to note that it seems that the mother’s body may be influenced by the fetus in that it seems that more older brothers seem to indicate a better chance for a younger brother to be gay.

        I believed you were referring to the concept that sexual development is in stages. Now, what would make me think that? Hmmm, you said it. You had some psych courses. Seems likely that you encountered the Freudian concept at some point. Stages of development indicate a progression from one to another and yes, influenced by environmental and social factors. It seems you are unsure what you want to talk about, KD, either the states of development or the influential factors. They are not one in the same. If you aren’t talking about research that claims early childhood trauma is an environmental factor, or if homosexuality is abnormal, what are you talking about? Give me examples of these environmental and social influence that *you* think play a greater role in sexual development at various stages or ages. And yes, anthropologists and sociologists have looked at this already. You can see some of these on the wiki entry.

        You say that you chose to be heterosexual in junior high school. How did you choose, KD? Did you say no to an offer of homosexual sex? Did you decide it was socially easier to be heterosexual than homosexual? Did you decided that it was better to like the opposite sex? The reason I’m asking is I don’t recall doing anything of the kind. I was attracted more to men, I didn’t decide to be.

        KD, you say that you weren’t going to blame my husband for my atheism and it was “curiosity”. Sure it was, KD. You just were curiously fishing for reasons I became an atheist and asked directly about my husband. It is fun to watch you insist that I can’t possibly make educated guesses but you make them right away e.g. “So while you say he had no influence over your decisions, that’s likely not entirely true.” And, I already know this, KD. You know, when I said you could have influenced your wife on the ring. In this instance, I had come to my decision on my own and reality does not take a back seat to wishful thinking. It may for you. Not for me. More baseless assumptions on your part, just like your fantasy of my family life. I don’t care what you find hard pressed to believe because you’ve been so wrong so many times. What you believe has so far had little relationship to reality. One would hope you would notice that discrepancy.

        And you do not ask indirect questions. You ask leading questions, looking for an answer that you hope exists. You hope that my husband influenced my conclusion that there are no gods. It isn’t true but you’ll through that possibility out there as if to guilt me into admitting something. It’s funny and ridiculous.

    • Quickly parsing through the comments I’m reminded of the Benjamin Disraeli quote:

      “He was distinguished for ignorance; for he had only one idea, and that was wrong.”

      Thank non-existent gawd that Kyle “I’m not a Doctor, but I like to play one on the Internet” isn’t a licensed therapist in real life. With so many faulty assumptions and wrong guesses one hopes he’d eventually realize that perhaps he’s not being guided by a higher power after all. But “hope” is the operative word.

      “As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly” (Proverbs 26:11)

      • It’s rather entertaining that KD insisted that he isn’t that interested in psych but supposedly got a degree of sorts in it and then has to make such hilarious bad claims about me based on what he supposedly knows about psych.

        That’s a great quote. If you hadn’t said it was from Disraeli, I’d have thought it was from Twain. 🙂

      • I suppose I brought this on my self. But Vel, what was it you said about my claim of my posts being ironic? That it’s like a bully saying “I was only joking.”

        First I wrote my posts, apparently you think you can read my mind and know what I was thinking and doing with writing them? Yes, my posts are meant to ironic as a result of what has stemmed from our conversation. Anything you want to claim about them is a lie. And no it is not like a bully saying I was only kidding. You neglect reality Vel.

        Second, it’s funny you talk about bullying yet act like one towards theists. You must only be joking right? You find things that I say entertaining and funny, and you must point them out to all your subs so they can join in on the fun. Kinda mimics tribalism too.

        Thirdly, y’all have the maturity level of 13 year olds. I guess acting like little children on the internet is “acceptable” behavior. But I guess if you have to wander around the internet and comment or post about the things others do or say and make fun of them to make yourselves feel better or justify your beliefs, have at. You have that freedom. Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t make your actions right.

      • Hmmm, still here? Let’s see, what did I say when I called you on your claim that your posts being “ironic”: “Your post are not ironic at all. They are what I have seen again and again from TrueChristians over decades. Try to call them “ironic” is rather like a bully trying to say “I was only joking.” Unsurprisingly, you don’t want to take responsibility for your actions.”

        You wrote your posts and nothing was indicated, until lately, that you were trying to be ironic. You see, KD, irony has a couple of meanings: pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other’s false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning; the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning; incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.” I see nothing of this from you. What I do see are personal attacks, baseless claims (those ol’logical fallacies that we still have no evidence for), utterly hilarious failed assumptions about me and my psychological status, etc. It does seem that your claims about you being so clever and ironic are no more true than your claims about me that you have still to support.

        You have yet to show that I’m lying, KD. You make the claim but haven’t a shred of evidence to back it up. You want to revise history to try to salvage something from your failures. Your attempt at claiming that you were only being ironic is just like a bully saying that they were only joking because it is an instance of someone wanting to claim that they didn’t really mean what they said because they now have to admit that they were wrong.

        Again, we see you trying to repeat what I said in order to accuse me of what I have shown you to be guilty of. Please do show that I’m a bully, KD. Where have I browbeat you, KD? Where have I mistreated you with no reason? Where have I been cruel? If you think that being shown you are wrong is bullying, then you must have a lot of problem in the real world where everyone is wrong at some point. It would not surprise me that you did think this, in that it does give you plenty of opportunities to claim you are a martyr. In my experience, many Christians do love to fantasize that they are martyrs because that allows them to not take responsibility for their actions.

        You claim that what I have done “kinda mimics tribalism too.” Really? I am curious, how does pointing out that your claims are wrong and you have failed to others tribal? I would point out to any group that someone is a failure if they were and their claims could cause harm.

        Aw, more personal attacks. Why you shouldn’t have, KD. 🙂 It’s lovely to see more baseless claims about me coming from you. It shows you have nothing else but those to use. I have made fun of you by ridicule and satire, KD, and I happily admit that because both are effective tools in showing how someone is wrong and should not be taken seriously.

        It’s also great to see you whine about what I do and forget that you “wander around the internet and comment and post about the things others do or say” and insist that they are wrong and have no evidence for your claims. I do not comment on others’ actions or words to make myself feel better. I comment because I do not tolerate lies and nonsense that cause harm like religion often does. I don’t need to justify anything, the facts are all I need.

        I know your actions aren’t right at all since I can show how they are wrong. I’m still waiting for you to that for your claims against me, KD.

        Now I’ll go back and address your other comments.

      • It’s very amusing to see this quote from you. Evidence of your claims? Or are you sure you are right, in your own mind?

        Again, where are those errors I made, KD? This would have been an excellent time to start showing them, as you say you might do.

      • You seem very capable of thinking for yourself. Unless you aren’t capable and you rely on others to think for you and you just go along with it?

        Perhaps you should watch Community Season 5 Episode 2. I had to chuckle to myself as towards the end I noticed similarities of the “moral of the episode” compared to our conversation.

      • Tsk, more attempts at a personal attack. I always do love the “but but I’m only asking a rhetorical question” technique that so many theists don’t think anyone recognizes.

      • You post uses circular reasoning. In that you claim you are going to “show” why you should speak out against [all] religion (in that the belief in the supernatural) in that they are all wrong. You proceed with the body of the post giving logical arguments and examples that are not exclusive to religion (or belief in gods) but to humanity in general. Your conclusion is that based off of the body and a short paragraph referencing “some” beliefs held by religions (in that the ones that are negative or questionable) you have concluded all religions are wrong.

        Yes, your conclusion matches your claim but the body doesn’t support your claim or your conclusion in that it is found in humanity and not solely in religions. And in that it doesn’t show all theists to be illogical in *all* their BPA’s or that they are causing harm against others as your conclusion states is your reason for speaking out.

        Your post gives good reason to speak out against people who do harm. Or that using logic is a good idea. And even raises the question whether the belief in god(s) is needed in the present day. But it does not “prove” all religions are wrong.

        Thinking through it you may have committed a formal fallacy as well. Give me a moment to think on this.

      • Wow, now accusations of circular reasoning. No, KD, I have not used circular reasoning. I have shown that religion causes all of those harms, because of what the religion claims. Thus, they are indeed exclusive to religion because of those claims that religions make. And again, KD, I have never said that religion is the cause of all the world’s problems. That is another lie of yours, a straw man created to attack since you could not address a real atheist’s points.

        I wonder if you know what circular reasoning is. An example is “God is good because good is god”. Show me actual circular reasoning, KD, not your false claim on what it is. Here’s a definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning Now, show me where I’ve done this.

        You’ve failed again.

      • This is an attempt at representing the formal fallacy I believe you’ve committed in the form of a question. I’ll do some research and come up with the actual fallacy later (with examples and why your original post committed it). Presuming in the question dogs and animals are not born with birth defects or have had limbs amputated by accident.

        It is known that all dogs have four legs and I show you a picture of an animal with four legs. Have I shown you a picture of a dog?

      • Sorry for all the comments, couldn’t sleep.

        Let’s take your claim that theists believe their gods to do their bidding but when god doesn’t do their bidding “selection bias” I believe you called it.

        Hmm. Let’s see. Months ago I posted a link of one of my daughters. Now if it was my desire for you click the link and meet my daughter (that by the action of posting the video) and was your will not to meet my family (the action of not clicking the link). Have I committed selection bias to say that it was not Vel’s will to do my desired outcome?

      • Wow, you don’t think very clearly when you can’t sleep, do you? I also don’t think very clearly sometimes since I mean confirmation bias, not selection bias. Sorry about that. It might make a difference in what you said but it seems that you did understand what I meant.

        Theists claim that their gods perform miracles for them. You did when you claimed your god intervened in your ring story. When it is pointed out that it’s silly and rather sickening that you want to claim a miracle for yourself but not for anyone else, you don’t like it so you invent reasons why your god doesn’t do miracles for people who need it more than you, e.g. those starving people in Ethiopia. You prayed so therefore you get a miracle. They prayed and didn’t, so they did something wrong, your god has some mysterious plan, etc.

        Months ago, you posted a video of one of your daughters. The reason, as you put it, ” I hoped the video might appeal to you sense of humanity…perhaps I was wrong?” You had a desire for me to click on the link. I thought you were creepy for offering it. So I did not.

        Confirmation bias is when you only remember that which confirms a belief and forget all of the times that your belief is shown to be false. You want believe in a god doing miracles so you find instances where you think you can claim that has happened. You ignore all of those instances where your prayers weren’t answered.

        So, what your example has to do with this I am not sure, unless you were confused by my calling confirmation bias, “selection bias” in error. You can claim that I opposed your will by not watching your video, but that would assume that I had any idea what your will was or that I could be influenced by it. We have no evidence of this so your claim would be false. If I had watched it, you could also claim that I obeyed your will, and that would also be a false claim with no evidence of your desire able to do anything. You may not have claimed confirmation bias, but you sure would be lying.

  11. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a Christian commenter comes slinking back, and a question: why believe one and not the others? | Club Schadenfreude

    • Exactly. A very clear memory from my youth is when the starvation in Ethiopia was so very bad. Even then I wondered, why no manna and quail from this god when I was singing “Jesus loves the little children” in Bible school at my church.

      • Ever wonder if you felt and thought those things to do something about it?

        Yes, apathy is apparently a good excuse even for an atheist!

        What could I have done when I was just a little girl. I felt bad for the starving kids in Ethiopia and believed God would send a miracle like he did for the Israelite’s, but I’m gonna sit around and do nothing but wonder.

        Is your excuse that you couldn’t come up with any good logical reason’s why you even as a little girl could have done something to help the starving kids in Ethiopia?

      • wow, more thoughtless claims from KD. More assumptions with nothing to support them. I was young and had no way to help them. I did do the unicef thing on Halloween. My parents gave to the church. Where did that money go to, you might ask? Well, KD, they decided to send people to Australia because, you know how Australians don’t know anything about this god of yours.

        I did believe that God should help the starving. He did once upon a time, if we are to accept the bible’s claims as fact. Please do explain why this god hasn’t done anything like this for the last several thousand years.

        It’s always good to see you try to blame my younger self for doing “nothing” when you seem to have no problem with your god doing less than I did.

  12. K.D. You are not addressing what I brought up, what I did or did not do is irrelevant.
    Why is a ring setting prayer answered as important, but the fervent cries of those dying are not?

    • I’d also enjoy seeing an explanation from KD on this topic.

      The usual answer from a theist is that their god/s have some mysterious plan that required their prayer answered and the prayers of others not to be. It’s a lovely excuse. 😛

  13. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – prayers and theist claims, or “again, why believe such claims?” | Club Schadenfreude

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s