I truly feel bad for atheists.

[LoneMateria]

I like the irony of Yrreg's posts.  He wants us to focus on an issue he has determined is relevant while disregarding all the issues that counter his points.  Focus Focus little atheists i'm talking here.  BTW I do use harsh words and I've been restraining myself from using more.  Your attitude is condensending your ideas are small minded and you ignore almost everything the people here have thrown back at you.  You call atheists "deniers" which i'm pretty sure you are making a reference to the old canard, "all atheist believe in god they just want to sin" or whatever variation it has become now.  You say we aren't curious people because we don't share your belief in something you can't prove.  Most atheists are atheists because they looked for the truth and realized, through study and learning, that the theistic gods are self contradictory and very implausible.  Yrreg YOU are the one who isn't curious about the world, YOU are the one who accepts absurdities and then tries to chastise for people for not agreeing with you, YOU are the one who IGNORES evidence to the contrary and just takes it on faith, and YOU are the one who is stopping us from having an intelligent conversation with you.

Lets get rid of the bullshit pretenses, and have a conversation that will actually go somewhere.  As long as you don't troll I (and i'm going to go out on a limb and say most of us here) don't have a problem having a conversation with you.

Yrreg why do you believe there is a god?  Why should we believe in your god?  Why is your particular view of religion "right" compared to other opposing views (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism)?  And what evidence do you have to support these beliefs?  I hope thats not too hard to answer.

[curiosityandthecat]

Let's go to #1 grievance, do you have any specific law in mind which is due to or founded on a theists'* view?

Gerry, I've got real research to do. I can't spend all my time doing yours for you. I and some others here have humored you long enough. If you want to know this information, the onus of responsibility rests firmly in your lap, not on those of random strangers on the internet. If you are so interested in this topic but are willing to let a bunch of forum users tell you what you should know, you're either academically forfeit or intellectually bankrupt.

[rlrose328]

"Yrreg"..."Yrreg"...is that something Nordic?

It's Gerry backwards... convenient.

[Yrreg]

I am leaving this thread, but it is not my thread, namely, I did not start it.


Why? Because it has become unproductive for readers.


I will start a new thread of my own, on how theists can learn from atheists how to revise their concept of God.




Yrreg

[Brizz]

Oh.

[Arctonyx]

So Yrreg, once you got your wish of open questions that you could answer to start a debate you left the thread, to start one that is equally redundant? I think that's rather telling of your intentions. You have no desire for an open debate, whenever someone has posed an interesting point of view or open question for you to answer, you've ignored them and talked about not being posed any interesting points or being asked any open questions. Yet you call us the deniers?

[Yrreg]

So Yrreg, once you got your wish of open questions that you could answer to start a debate you left the thread, to start one that is equally redundant? I think that's rather telling of your intentions. You have no desire for an open debate, whenever someone has posed an interesting point of view or open question for you to answer, you've ignored them and talked about not being posed any interesting points or being asked any open questions. Yet you call us the deniers?

Not really that I am no longer interested in the topic of the thread here, but I realize that people are not disposed to be receptive to an idea which I believe to be good for everyone, like getting an impartial panel to judge who are more logical, atheists or theists.

This is not my thread, but I introduced a deviation with my suggestion as I said of an impartial board of judges to decide who have more and better reasons to be atheists or theists.

If you still want me to reply to any specific point I brought up and you or others here reacted to, please let me know.

I left this happy atheists' forum for some time, but I am here again, and you might know why I was away.

No, I don't like debate, but I welcome cordial exchange of views, at least to finally determine where both sides have come to an impasse, and then find out mutually accepted ways and means to still work together and like each other notwithstanding the impasse.



Yrreg

[Karras]

If you still want me to reply to any specific point I brought up and you or others here reacted to, please let me know.

OK then, I have a couple of specific points that you have been dodging I would like addressed, please.

1) How do you suppose we find "impartial" judges? Surely the only even remotely impartial people on this subject are agnostics and even then I'm not sure.

2) By what right do you declare Christians the primarly representatives of theism? (Hint: Popularity is not enough, you must demonstrate that they are more correct in their beliefs than the others.)

[nikkmichalski]

I like Fructus, Fruictus.... the green bottle stuff. Although I recently read that you should only wash your hair every few days because the natural oils are good for your hair.

I used to use that, but after I switched to my fauxhawk, and subsequently mohawk phase, I used the dandruff shampoo, since the scalp is more visible. But from what I remember, that Fructus really takes the cake. And that VO5 conditioner. I agree with the OP on the "Peace" part, though.

[Reginus]

hehe I spent a good 30 seconds ing at curio's first responce.

[Heretical Rants]

1) How do you suppose we find "impartial" judges?

Now that it has come to this, I suppose we have no choice.

We must find Mr. Spock.

[Lea]

Come on guys, Yrreg has stopped preaching and wants to have some type of contest in which we figure out which side of the theist/atheist debate has the advantage.  

Here is the contest I propose.

We think of something only God can control and can't be faked.  How about the weather?  Yes that will do.  Now, all the theists will get together and pray to the deity of their choice that some extraordinary weather situation will occur. (something that won't cause too much havoc)  Heres an example; They will pray for God to make it snow 1/2 inch in Miami, FL on August 15, 2010.  (snow making machines don't count.) There, theists have almost a year to appeal to their God(s).  Plenty of time for God to prepare.  

Atheists do nothing.

We wait for Aug. 15.  If it snows in Miami, theists win, if not, atheists do.  

Ready, GO!

[Reginus]

Come on guys, Yrreg has stopped preaching and wants to have some type of contest in which we figure out which side of the theist/atheist debate has the advantage.  

Here is the contest I propose.

We think of something only God can control and can't be faked.  How about the weather?  Yes that will do.  Now, all the theists will get together and pray to the deity of their choice that some extraordinary weather situation will occur. (something that won't cause too much havoc)  Heres an example; They will pray for God to make it snow 1/2 inch in Miami, FL on August 15, 2010.  (snow making machines don't count.) There, theists have almost a year to appeal to their God(s).  Plenty of time for God to prepare.  

Atheists do nothing.

We wait for Aug. 15.  If it snows in Miami, theists win, if not, atheists do.  

Ready, GO!

[LoneMateria]

Since when does theism require the belief that God gives a damn about people in Miami?  

lol  lol

I think the word you are looking for is deism  

[Reginus]

lol  lol

I think the word you are looking for is deism  lol Hmm perhaps I should change my question up a little bit. Since when does theism require the belief that God makes choices based on the quantity of prayers given to him by the people he created, despite his infinite knowledge?