How do you perceive the twaddle to violate the laws of physics?
Evidence that God is real
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Givin my examples of ther 2 dauthers… explain what it is about my statement that you find discriminatory.!!!
Firstly you were replying to Write4U’s comment “I am very wary of religions and "religious" people." Which is discriminatory in an of itself.
I’m quite sure if someone had written ...
I am very wary of homosexuality and "homosexual" people.", there would have been a mimi uproar.
So you were obviously in agreement with that.
So why was “religion”, and “religious” people to blame for anything? Why couldn’t they just be referred as “people”?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
An alarming straw man.
Religious tenets are a choice. Jan, appears to be one of those people who believes that sexual orientation is a choice.
Appropriately, it is Jan who has - time and time and time again - made it abundantly clear that he defines people - quite literally - by labels. He defines people as theist or atheist. That's a bed he very publicly and diligently made for himself; he is handcuffed to it.
(For the love of all that is good, Jan, stop digging. You're revealing some very dark things about yourself.)
Last edited:
From a fast read through the links and your observation
None of the musings of your respected physicists and futurists appear to take into account the size of the Universe and how said size would require the implementation of said musings to occur, in Star Trek terms, at speeds greater than Waep 10 (guesstimate)
Happy for you or your respected physicists and futurists to put some flesh and muscle along with some maths to show the plausibility of their musings along with discrediting my Warp 10 musing
Here we go again. I give him about three posts to declare that there's no True Scotsman.
One:
Two:
Three:
Regular as clockwork is our Jan.
Ho hum.
No I didn't. If I did, you could quote me.
Of course a bachelor can become married. And a theist can become an atheist.
Everybody was a bachelor before he was married. Things can change.
Sound like you have a bone to pick wit W4U.!!!
Some commentary from the sidelines...
No, Jan asked sideshowbob how he knew he believed in God. Which can be taken in at least one of two ways.
The first one is this: "How did you know that what you believed in was God (as opposed to something else)?"
The second one is this: "How did you know you believed (in God), as opposed to not believing?"
As to the first question, again a sensible answer would be "I didn't know, I assumed".
As to the second question, the answer is "Because that's what sideshowbob told you". People don't talk about beliefs they don't know they have, when you ask them whether they believe those beliefs. When somebody expresses his opinion, he knows he holds that opinion, unless he is telling a deliberate lie about his opinion. Nobody here is suggesting that sideshowbob was telling a deliberate lie when he said he believed in God. Or are they?
I might also point out that Jan himself has "just convinced himself" he believes in God. Does that mean Jan is a liar as well, when he says he is a believer?
I mean, here Jan concludes that everything sideshowbob has said to this point in the conversation "means you didn't believe in God". Yet, Jan is responding following the unambigous statement from sideshowbob "I believed in God as much as you do." I'd say that statement pretty much clarifies whether sideshowbob believed in God or not. He says he held the belief. He knew he held the belief, or else he wouldn't have said he held it.
So let's face the facts: sideshowbob at one time believed in God, just like Jan does now. Move on.
Oh, but we can't, because Jan thinks that conversion from theism to atheism is impossible. Any current atheist claiming to have been a theist in the past must never have been a proper, honest-to-God theist. There are no True Scotsmen in Scotland - only people who claim to be Scotsmen. Asymmetrically, and therefore somewhat strangely, Jan does appear to believe that conversion from atheism to theism is possible, although maybe that's only because every self-confessed atheist is, deep down, really a believer in God after all, including those ex-theist atheists who Jan says were never true theists. Phew. It's all a bit exhausting to get your head into Jan's headspace, isn't it?
Anyway, the take-home message from Jan appears to be that atheists can't be trusted to speak honestly about their own beliefs, past or present. Theists are free to assume what they like about the atheists, as the occasion suits them.
So we get this kind of thing:
Get it?
Notice also how in Jan's discourse the ex-theist atheists have progressed from simply being mistaken about being ex-theists to having been pretend theists. Things have heated up. At the start, we might have been forgiven for thinking that the silly atheist just didn't know his own mind when he thought he used to be a theist, but now Jan has made it clear to us that the atheist knew all along that he wasn't a theist - he was just pretending. Maybe we'll get to hear more from Jan later on, concerning the evil atheists' dastardly plot in trying to blend in with the theists by pretending to be one with them, before turning the tables and suddenly declaring themselves atheist, as they always were from the start.
Here's sideshowbob assuring Jan yet again that he used to believe in God, and Jan is insisting that, no, really he didn't, because it's impossible for somebody who now calls himself an atheist ever to have proclaimed his belief in God in the past. Besides, Jan is onto him now; Jan knows he was only pretending, all along.
The rationale, recall, is once an atheist, always an atheist, except that atheists deep down still believe in God while telling the world that they don't (but that they used to, which they didn't really, although at the same time they kind of did). Get it?
Notice that Jan did not ask "How did you know God was real?", to which sideshowbob might well have answered "I didn't know; I assumed."
No, Jan asked sideshowbob how he knew he believed in God. Which can be taken in at least one of two ways.
The first one is this: "How did you know that what you believed in was God (as opposed to something else)?"
The second one is this: "How did you know you believed (in God), as opposed to not believing?"
As to the first question, again a sensible answer would be "I didn't know, I assumed".
As to the second question, the answer is "Because that's what sideshowbob told you". People don't talk about beliefs they don't know they have, when you ask them whether they believe those beliefs. When somebody expresses his opinion, he knows he holds that opinion, unless he is telling a deliberate lie about his opinion. Nobody here is suggesting that sideshowbob was telling a deliberate lie when he said he believed in God. Or are they?
If sideshowbob managed to convince himself that he believed in God, then he believed in God. If I just convince myself that the room is full of purple frogs, then I believe the room is full of purple frogs. It's not a lie if I then tell you that I am a believer in the room full of purple frogs.
I might also point out that Jan himself has "just convinced himself" he believes in God. Does that mean Jan is a liar as well, when he says he is a believer?
It's fairly clear what sideshowbob's meaning is. The fact that Jan seeks to obfuscate is telling.
I mean, here Jan concludes that everything sideshowbob has said to this point in the conversation "means you didn't believe in God". Yet, Jan is responding following the unambigous statement from sideshowbob "I believed in God as much as you do." I'd say that statement pretty much clarifies whether sideshowbob believed in God or not. He says he held the belief. He knew he held the belief, or else he wouldn't have said he held it.
So let's face the facts: sideshowbob at one time believed in God, just like Jan does now. Move on.
Oh, but we can't, because Jan thinks that conversion from theism to atheism is impossible. Any current atheist claiming to have been a theist in the past must never have been a proper, honest-to-God theist. There are no True Scotsmen in Scotland - only people who claim to be Scotsmen. Asymmetrically, and therefore somewhat strangely, Jan does appear to believe that conversion from atheism to theism is possible, although maybe that's only because every self-confessed atheist is, deep down, really a believer in God after all, including those ex-theist atheists who Jan says were never true theists. Phew. It's all a bit exhausting to get your head into Jan's headspace, isn't it?
Anyway, the take-home message from Jan appears to be that atheists can't be trusted to speak honestly about their own beliefs, past or present. Theists are free to assume what they like about the atheists, as the occasion suits them.
So we get this kind of thing:
The word "fundamentally" is important here. As far as Jan is concerned, atheism and theism are "fundamental" positions. One is apparently born destined to be theist or atheist. The atheists, although really accepting that God is real deep down, are unable to bring themselves ever to acknowledge this reality. Even if they claim at one point in their lives to be theists, the essence of atheism is in them, thus making their claims of theism empty at the time and making it valid to declare their self-proclaimed theism fake after they start telling people about their (superficial) change of mind, despite the fact that deep down they actually knew there was a God all along.
Get it?
Notice also how in Jan's discourse the ex-theist atheists have progressed from simply being mistaken about being ex-theists to having been pretend theists. Things have heated up. At the start, we might have been forgiven for thinking that the silly atheist just didn't know his own mind when he thought he used to be a theist, but now Jan has made it clear to us that the atheist knew all along that he wasn't a theist - he was just pretending. Maybe we'll get to hear more from Jan later on, concerning the evil atheists' dastardly plot in trying to blend in with the theists by pretending to be one with them, before turning the tables and suddenly declaring themselves atheist, as they always were from the start.
sideshowbob said:
At this point, you can picture Jan frothing at the mouth.Jan Ardena said:
Here's sideshowbob assuring Jan yet again that he used to believe in God, and Jan is insisting that, no, really he didn't, because it's impossible for somebody who now calls himself an atheist ever to have proclaimed his belief in God in the past. Besides, Jan is onto him now; Jan knows he was only pretending, all along.
The rationale, recall, is once an atheist, always an atheist, except that atheists deep down still believe in God while telling the world that they don't (but that they used to, which they didn't really, although at the same time they kind of did). Get it?
Last edited:
I don’t have a bone to pick, period. I’m just having fun.
Aren’t you having fun?
Jan,
Yes but you can’t be a bachelor, and married at the same time.
An atheist cannot be a theist, until they stop being an atheist. An atheist cannot know anything about theism until he stops being an atheist. An atheists understanding that of theism is of no real value, because an atheist cannot know God. You have to stop being an atheist.
Jan.
I didn't say you could. And I didn't say I was a thesit and an atheist at the same time either.
And a theist can not be an atheist until they stop being a theist. That is what happened to me.
But I was a theist first, and I knew as much about theism as you do. Then I found out that it was all a load of rubbish, like belief in Santa Claus.
That statement is of no value.
Well, no. You don't un-know what you knew before.
I suspected that from you'r nonsinsical replys... an i accept blame for givin you to much credit
And why a you're a theist. You just convinced yourself that you're a believer. Which makes you a believer.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is not true. Anyone is quite capable of understanding a lot about theism even without believing in God.
Just as doctors are capable of understanding a lot about child development without having a uterus, and astronomers can understand a lot about stars without ever having visited one.
I suspected that from you'r nonsinsical replys... an i accept blame for givin you to much credit
Okay angry-man.
Jan,