• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Enough To Make Fair-Minded Christians Sick To Their Stomachs

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
This isn't about me. I don't claim to have done biased studies that count as evidence for anything. That's you doing that. I'm the one questioning your claims. If you're interested in doing actual science, you should get used to your claims being questioned, because that's what it's all about.

Remember back when I was asking you questions about your prayer "studies" you had talked about doing when you claimed that all your prayers have come true? I had asked you to demonstrate that. You couldn't, because your "study" was simply based on your biased personal opinion. Something that is not demonstrable to anyone isn't really that informative or helpful, is it?


There you go again. This is where you run into problems. You can't claim statistical significance without being able to demonstrate it. Basically, we're just going on your opinion here.
How did you determine it is not due to chance? What is your sample size? We don't have to go over this again, do we?

You keep saying this and yet I've asked you several times to point out where you thought I was being rude (because I don't generally like to be rude) and you have still not done it.

What I actually said was this:

"I have assaulted you in no way. I have not been mean to you. What I have done, is ask you to verify your claims. That shouldn't be too much to ask on a debate forum. In your mind, if that is rude, then so be it, I guess."

So yeah, I guess if you think debating in a debate forum is rude, then I'm being rude. However, I do not define rudeness in that way, and I doubt many other people do either. I'm here doing what I'm supposed to be doing here. You are here complaining about it and branding debate and questioning of claims as rude. So there's nothing I can do about that but disagree with your definition. If you just want to define anything that questions your claims and beliefs as "rude" then I guess an awful lot of people are going to seem rude to you. So again I will suggest that debate forums aren't for you, given that you apparently think debating and questioning is so very rude.

Look, you are making claims about the world that you declare to be the absolute Truth. Is it really all that surprising to you that people would question how and why you've come to such determinations, especially when many other people either can't see what you see, or believe in different god(s) or Truths? That's all I've ever wanted to know about your beliefs (other than what they are). Why do you believe the things you do and why should others believe them as well? That's the bottom line. If you can't demonstrate something, why should anyone just believe whatever you say?

While I can concur that you have moved from being rude to being merely annoying, I'll repeat, since you seem to misunderstand scientific rigor and the scientific method:

1) I have seen supernatural answers to prayer hundreds of times

2) I have seen skeptics act rudely thousands of times

3) I have had my prayers answered for my benefit and those I was praying for thousands of times

4) I have seen money miracles via tithes and gifts hundreds of times

5) I have seen hundreds of people converted away from horrible addictions and brokenness, and recognize that the greatest active converts in the last century have been ATHEISTS

When I see things occurring hundreds or thousands of times in a formulaic way--a way(s) outlined in the Bible, I eventually have to conclude (or re-conclude) one of the following:

1) I'm guilty of intensive apophenia

2) I'm misreading thousands of iterations

3) It's all real

YOU CAN PROVE THIS ALL REAL by, for example, praying and tithing, and you CAN DISPROVE this all by loving me instead of being (rudely, still, looks like) annoying!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
While I can concur that you have moved from being rude to being merely annoying, I'll repeat, since you seem to misunderstand scientific rigor and the scientific method:
Well, again I would say that if you find questions about your claims to be annoying, you probably shouldn't be in a debate forum. Because again, that's what goes on here.


1) I have seen supernatural answers to prayer hundreds of times

2) I have seen skeptics act rudely thousands of times

3) I have had my prayers answered for my benefit and those I was praying for thousands of times

4) I have seen money miracles via tithes and gifts hundreds of times

5) I have seen hundreds of people converted away from horrible addictions and brokenness, and recognize that the greatest active converts in the last century have been ATHEISTS

When I see things occurring hundreds or thousands of times in a formulaic way--a way(s) outlined in the Bible, I eventually have to conclude (or re-conclude) one of the following:

1) I'm guilty of intensive apophenia

2) I'm misreading thousands of iterations

3) It's all real

YOU CAN PROVE THIS ALL REAL by, for example, praying and tithing, and you CAN DISPROVE this all by loving me instead of being (rudely, still, looks like) annoying!
On what basis are you telling me that anything you've said here is scientific?

You've claimed that all atheists and/or skeptics are rude, which by extension would mean that you think I am being rude toward you, and that I will always be rude towards you. So when I ask you to show me where I have been rude, suddenly now I'm not rude, but just annoying. So we just found an atheist who isn't rude, which takes your hypothesis right down the toilet. Not that it was all that valid to begin with. Your hypothesis is almost entirely based upon confirmation bias, stemming from your interpretation of some Bible passages.

We've already discussed what is wrong with your assertions about prayers, on more than one occasion. So, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again. And besides that, actual rigorous studies that exist on prayer haven't returned the same results that you think you've got.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The fact that you don't know how to be kind and gentle in a debate forum, and can't even fathom what it means to "play nice" speaks volumes, again, that the Bible is true.
You know, when I think about it, you're pretty much the only person I can think of on this forum (or any forum, for that matter) that has ever suggested to me that I am a rude or unkind person. In real life, I'm not known for being a rude person - quite the opposite in fact.

And then I think about your preconceptions that you've taken from the Bible and I realize that your view of atheists and skeptical people is biased against them from the get-go, so that you see what you want to see (or have to see), when interacting with such people, where you're assuming they're going to be terrible people before you've even met them. Because the Bible just has to be right.
I would advise you to drop your preconceptions and instead just try to see each individual as they are without assuming from the start that they are bad people. That's what an actual kind and gentle person would do.

So I'm stuck asking you again, because you never did answer and instead tried to impugn my character, what is "playing nicely" in your opinion? Agreeing with you? Blindly accepting your claims? What?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Well, again I would say that if you find questions about your claims to be annoying, you probably shouldn't be in a debate forum. Because again, that's what goes on here.



On what basis are you telling me that anything you've said here is scientific?

You've claimed that all atheists and/or skeptics are rude, which by extension would mean that you think I am being rude toward you, and that I will always be rude towards you. So when I ask you to show me where I have been rude, suddenly now I'm not rude, but just annoying. So we just found an atheist who isn't rude, which takes your hypothesis right down the toilet. Not that it was all that valid to begin with. Your hypothesis is almost entirely based upon confirmation bias, stemming from your interpretation of some Bible passages.

We've already discussed what is wrong with your assertions about prayers, on more than one occasion. So, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again. And besides that, actual rigorous studies that exist on prayer haven't returned the same results that you think you've got.

"My hypothesis down the toilet" is the very heights and depths of RUDE. I NEVER, EVER speak to any colleague that way, EVER.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
"My hypothesis down the toilet" is the very heights and depths of RUDE. I NEVER, EVER speak to any colleague that way, EVER.
Why is that rude? I haven't attacked you, I've pointed out your argument doesn't hold up.

Oh wait, I see what you're doing. You have to say I'm rude now, because otherwise, your hypothesis would be invalidated, as I just pointed out.

Nothing to say about any of my actual points or questions ... ? Just this dismissal?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Let's review:

1) The Bible says skeptics behave very badly, not playing nicely in the sandbox
2) I claim you can break the Bible for me and snap me out of my delusion by playing nicely
3) You reaffirm you will not respect the Bible or me or even attempt to love someone else today who isn't you, whom you seem to love above all

THANK YOU for reaffirming the Bible for me--I have no reason to be a skeptic now--plus it will make me a sour person, looks like!
According to a lot of Christians I have spoken with and interacted with online, telling someone their behavior is going to get them cast down into a lake of fire for eternity (even when the behavior shows no outward signs of hurting anyone or anything) is a "loving" gesture. Do you subscribe to such notions? And if you do, is that the kind of "love" you're interested in me showing to you? If not, what would you consider "love" within an internet forum? Would you like me to compliment your spelling and grammar?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Why is that rude? I haven't attacked you, I've pointed out your argument doesn't hold up.

Oh wait, I see what you're doing. You have to say I'm rude now, because otherwise, your hypothesis would be invalidated, as I just pointed out.

Nothing to say about any of my actual points or questions ... ? Just this dismissal?

Pardon me, you used the words, "my thesis is down the toilet". Do you speak to your university professors that way? Or your friends? Or anyone you're not being rude to?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Pardon me, you used the words, "my thesis is down the toilet". Do you speak to your university professors that way? Or your friends? Or anyone you're not being rude to?
Yes, I do. My friends and colleagues and I laugh all the time about how our various hypotheses have gone right down the toilet along with all our hard work. No big deal.
You could do with a little chilling out, I think.Only if you want to though - I wouldn't want to be accused of being rude. ;)

Your hypothesis is refuted then. Is that better for you? Getting back to the point and all ...
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
According to a lot of Christians I have spoken with and interacted with online, telling someone their behavior is going to get them cast down into a lake of fire for eternity (even when the behavior shows no outward signs of hurting anyone or anything) is a "loving" gesture. Do you subscribe to such notions? And if you do, is that the kind of "love" you're interested in me showing to you? If not, what would you consider "love" within an internet forum? Would you like me to compliment your spelling and grammar?

When is telling the truth or warning people of danger not loving?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
When is telling the truth or warning people of danger not loving?
When you can't even know if the danger is real or not, because it occurs in an as-good-as-imaginary realm that we cannot interact with, examine, or know the true nature of, and the subject of your warning has nothing to do with their health or well-being throughout their life on Earth - in fact, your (arguably useless) "warnings" are sometimes actually found to be detrimental to the quality of their life and well-being on Earth.

Of course... I believe you knew I was going to point this out already.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yes, I do. My friends and colleagues and I laugh all the time about how our various hypotheses have gone right down the toilet along with all our hard work. No big deal.
You could do with a little chilling out, I think.Only if you want to though - I wouldn't want to be accused of being rude. ;)

Your hypothesis is refuted then. Is that better for you? Getting back to the point and all ...

And look at how you "apologize", exceptionally rudely. Sad.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
When you can't even know if the danger is real or not, because it occurs in an as-good-as-imaginary realm that we cannot interact with, examine, or know the true nature of, and the subject of your warning has nothing to do with their health or well-being throughout their life on Earth - in fact, your (arguably useless) "warnings" are sometimes actually found to be detrimental to the quality of their life and well-being on Earth.

Of course... I believe you knew I was going to point this out already.

Jesus, who resurrected from the dead, can speak with authority on the dangers and rewards of eternity. He is above either of us in knowledge, love and power.

But here's your double standard--you claim above that Heaven and Hell warnings are--how did you put it?--are "actually found to be detrimental to the quality of life and well-being on Earth". So, to keep yourself healthy and sane--you spend reams of time on ReligiousForums!

GET SOME HELP for your self-destructive tendencies. There is no god, no Heaven above us or Hell below us, as John Lennon--who spent DAYS watching Christian programs on TV, and even calling top evangelists to inquire, "believed". So leave RF and spare your earthly health and peace of mind, brother!
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Jesus, who resurrected from the dead, can speak with authority on the dangers and rewards of eternity. He is above either of us in knowledge, love and power.
I don't believe this to be true, and there is nothing compelling me to accept it. You do at least understand that, right? I think I asked you something similar before, but you never answered. Do you understand that I am not under any obligation to follow Jesus' teachings or adhere to his prescriptions for human lives?

But here's your double standard--you claim above that Heaven and Hell warnings are--how did you put it?--are "actually found to be detrimental to the quality of life and well-being on Earth". So, to keep yourself healthy and sane--you spend reams of time on ReligiousForums!

GET SOME HELP for your self-destructive tendencies. There is no god, no Heaven above us or Hell below us, as John Lennon--who spent DAYS watching Christian programs on TV, and even calling top evangelists to inquire, "believed". So leave RF and spare your earthly health and peace of mind, brother!
Nice try. Those things are not detrimental to my health, well-being or quality of life on Earth, except insomuch as I have to "suffer" the knowledge that my fellow man is often delusional to an extreme. Others are not so lucky as to have my thick skin or mental constitution, and it is on their behalf that I write about the dangers of afterlife threats. Which (what do you know?) happens to be one of the reasons I actively put myself out there and question people's religious views. This is all sort of "duh" however, and doesn't even really deserve any further expounding on.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
And look at how you "apologize", exceptionally rudely. Sad.
It wasn't an apology. It was a request to return back to the point under discussion.

Where is it that you think I was "exceptionally" rude in what I said? Please specify. I am very interested in your response, because honestly, it's starting to look like you simply consider it rude to question your claims or to point out that your hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
It is a pretty sad state of affairs when a teacher can make known they are a homosexual, but another teacher is afraid of backlash if they mention they are a Christian.

I am a public school educator. I have not known anyone afraid of discussing their Christian affliliation where it's appropriate. Maybe it's a regional thing; it is a rural school with a strong Christian community.

Would I say the same for other religious affiliations? No. I would not bring up that I practice Paganism in the classroom.

That said, Christianity is a good thing to bring up in certain contexts but should not be used to teach things it tends to decry such as sex ed and evolution.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I don't believe this to be true, and there is nothing compelling me to accept it. You do at least understand that, right? I think I asked you something similar before, but you never answered. Do you understand that I am not under any obligation to follow Jesus' teachings or adhere to his prescriptions for human lives?


Nice try. Those things are not detrimental to my health, well-being or quality of life on Earth, except insomuch as I have to "suffer" the knowledge that my fellow man is often delusional to an extreme. Others are not so lucky as to have my thick skin or mental constitution, and it is on their behalf that I write about the dangers of afterlife threats. Which (what do you know?) happens to be one of the reasons I actively put myself out there and question people's religious views. This is all sort of "duh" however, and doesn't even really deserve any further expounding on.

I think I understand, you believe that you are:

1) immune to following any god and so a great candidate to be an open-minded learner at a religious forum (not!)

2) immune to suffering from evangelism efforts from any religion, and so are better qualified not to be an open-minded learner, but rather to reprove at RF any god-ward efforts of any kind, due to your excessive intolerance and lack of in-my-shoes living

Got it! You are at RF as an avowed lifelong forever skeptic to be a pain in my . . .
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It wasn't an apology. It was a request to return back to the point under discussion.

Where is it that you think I was "exceptionally" rude in what I said? Please specify. I am very interested in your response, because honestly, it's starting to look like you simply consider it rude to question your claims or to point out that your hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I've fished for an apology from you a dozen times, and you were sure in your most recent post for me to understand "it WASN'T an apology". Wow, but you claim that outside RF you are known as an easygoing person. I've apologized for things I haven't done--mostly to skeptics who are at permanent ticked-off mode here at RF.

Let's forget your rudeness for now and you can remind me what question(s) you desperately require me to answer for you.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I've fished for an apology from you a dozen times, and you were sure in your most recent post for me to understand "it WASN'T an apology". Wow, but you claim that outside RF you are known as an easygoing person. I've apologized for things I haven't done--mostly to skeptics who are at permanent ticked-off mode here at RF.

Let's forget your rudeness for now and you can remind me what question(s) you desperately require me to answer for you.
Okay, so you're not going to answer my questions either. You need to be reminded what they are, again. Dude, all you need to do is scroll up a little bit - they were in my last post to you (hint: it's the one you just responded to).

So all I can conclude at this point (since you refuse to articulate what you think is so rude), is that you apparently believe that unless I am agreeing with you, and if I question your assertions, then I am being rude. On a debate forum.
Sorry, but I don't agree that it's rude to do what is supposed to be done on a debate forum. If you think it's rude to question someone's assertions, perhaps it is not the best place for you.

So here we are again, taken completely off topic, discussing your personal feelings about rudeness instead of the thread topic. Again.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I think I understand, you believe that you are:

1) immune to following any god and so a great candidate to be an open-minded learner at a religious forum (not!)

2) immune to suffering from evangelism efforts from any religion, and so are better qualified not to be an open-minded learner, but rather to reprove at RF any god-ward efforts of any kind, due to your excessive intolerance and lack of in-my-shoes living

Got it! You are at RF as an avowed lifelong forever skeptic to be a pain in my . . .
This is all mostly correct, if I am being completely honest. But you forgot the reason that I am "immune," because that is important. Complete lack of compelling evidence. Rectify that lack, and there will be no reason for me to have to be so "open-minded" in order to accept your no-better-than-fiction tales, right?

I truly believe that you are using the term "open-minded" as a euphemism for "gullible" or "credulous." And in that light, being "open-minded" is definitely not something to be proud of.
 
Top