Raf

The Geer defection took place at exactly the right time to capitalize on the enthusiasm of a believer like me, a newbie who could show he was not beholden to a cult by breaking away from it (right into the arms of the same cult, when you think about it).

Please list at least some of them. Who knows? You might change my mind about something.

Too bad. No charity is entitled to freewill donations. If you want to give to the Timbuktu Poison Ivy Conservation Society, that's your right and your business.

If you are suggesting that you have secretly been atheist all along, I accept your confession with some genuine surprise. If you are suggesting that I have been secretly atheist all along, that makes you a liar, a bearer of false witness, a slanderer. Telling the truth about yourself does not give you license to lie about other people.

Agreed, Rocky. And I shared my "conversion" because of the nature of this forum, the discussions we have and the positions I have taken in the past. If this were a forum of Battlestar Galactica fans, I would not have mentioned it. Of course, a fan of Battlestar Galactica who later changes his mind is never accused of never having been a real fan in the first place.

You've convinced me.

Yes

The shifting of the burden of proof is the age-old tactic of theism, and it is what John is doing here. He asserts that I have no proof for the claim there is no devil, and therefore the position that there is no devil requires faith. Bull. That is a lie. There is no need for me to disprove a proposition for which there is no proof in the first place. It is not the responsibility of unbelievers to disprove Zeus, Allah, Vishnu. Thor, Odin, Willy Wonka, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, fairies, goblins, gremlins, E.T.'s, Peter Pan, Candy Man, the bogeyman, werewolves, vampires, succubbi, drop dead fred, Satan, or God. It takes faith to believe in any of those things. Not believing in them does not take faith. The burden is on the person who believes in those things to prove those things. Continuing to believe in those things despite being unable to prove them takes faith. Rejecting any of those claims does NOT take faith. It is simply an expression of my opinion that you have not met the burden of proof. Remember, the burden of proof always falls on the person making an AFFIRMATIVE claim. "There is no God" is not an affirmative claim. It does not await proof. And no matter how you try to rephrase it, it will never be an affirmative claim. An affirmative claim is one that asserts something exists or happened, etc. "There is no devil" is not an affirmative claim. Your failure to prove your claim is sufficient reason for me to disbelieve it. It doesn't become my responsibility to disprove your claim. You're the one with faith, not I.

Recap: when I said: What I meant was: Agnosticism is a feature of every point on that scale except 1 and 7. Most atheists I have encountered are a 6. Some like to get clever and say "6.9999." The point is, they don't pretend to "know that they know that they know" there is no God. But they're pretty confident on the subject. That confidence may sometimes come off as certainty, but that's because we're all human and we don't stand around qualifying every single sentence we utter. When I said in my opening post on this thread that I say in my heart there is no God, I said it with confidence, not certainty. What I meant was NOT Well, ONE of us is speaking English here, but his name does not rhyme with Ron Eye Yam. Enough double speak and twisting people's words around, John. E nuff.

Thank you, waysider, for pointing out what should have been the obvious. I never said I know God doesn't exist, and if you've paid any attention to this thread, you can see that I had a specific post about it. Which means either that johniam has not really read the thread and all my comments, he's lying, or he lacks basic reading comprehension skills. Since b and c require me to engage in a personal attack, i'll go ahead and hope the answer is a, he hasn't read the thread. Because it would be wrong and against the rules to call someone a liar or an idiot.

The star of the movie bore such a strong resemblance to the writer/director/costar that he almost didn't get the part

Thanks Ron

I have a good idea for a follow-up next year. I'll let you know if it's accepted by the ALS Association.

No, this is AfterMASH

Selective reasoning is one thing. Electing not to reason is another. Vague criticisms are nothing but personal insults in disguise. Why not just say hey, we don't agree, but I respect your right to disagree with me on this and other issues. Either that, or grow a pair and say what you're really thinking.

Two quick points, with the right to comment further tomorrow when I'm at a keyboard: If faith is believing in something you can't prove, then refusing to believe something you can't prove, by definition, is not faith. It takes faith to believe there is something spiritual at work in Ferguson. Natural explanations cover the situation quite adequately. If you assert something on faith, it takes "not faith" to deny it. Does it take faith to deny Zeus, Thor and Odin? No. Nor does it take faith to deny Satan. He doesn't exist. It takes faith to say he does. I reject that, and it does not take faith to do so. Second, there seems to be a defense mechanism built into some Christians that requires them to slander those who once embrace and later leave the faith as never having truly been believers. I guess it terrifies you to the core of your being to recognize that a true believer can truly evaluate what he truly believes and come to the realization that it's a bunch of ancient made up superstitious nonsense. Well, hate to burst your bubble, but that's what happened here. I truly believed, and anyone who implies the opposite, subtly or directly, is a despicable bald faced liar who should be ashamed of himself for bearing falsewitness against his neighbor. Period. If you want to believe that about me, you're entitled, and I can't stop you. But the moment you articulate that belief about me, you will have engaged me on a personal level, and I will respond to you on that level. I hope I've made myself exceedingly abundantly clear.

Yes.

Very cool.

Holiday Road

The title of the nominated best song was also the name of the movie, and it (the song) drove the plot.

I can't prove the warmth in the bosom felt by Mormons isn't what they claim it is. I can't prove that when a bus turns the corner, it doesn't cease to exist as soon as it is out of my sight. I can't disprove that Oakspear has an invisible dragon in his garage. But the evidence is against all those prospects. The existence of a natural explanation overrides the insistence that there is a supernatural explanation, unless you have some further evidence that the natural explanation is insufficient. If we define "faith" as accepting something even though the evidence for it is not sufficient, then it does NOT take faith to disbelieve in the supernatural when it comes to Ferguson. The natural explanations are sufficient. If we define "faith" as a strict synonym for "believing," then it's irrelevant to say I have faith, because of course I do. Everyone does. But you have defined faith in such a way that it is meaningless as its own word, and you have also countered an assertion I never made. In other words, you're wasting your breath. And it wouldn't be the first time. Wierwille (in the PFAL class) falsely defined atheism as "not believing" and surmised that no one could really be an atheist, because they believe they don't believe. Therefore they believe. It was a cute quip, but it started on a false premise. An atheist is not someone who doesn't believe. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. Of course people can be atheist. Duh! But when you start saying things like "atheists have faith, too," then you are playing word games, and it is incumbent upon you to define what you mean by the word "faith." Otherwise, the discussion is meaningless.

Anyone participate in this thing yet? For those who haven't heard of it, the challenge is to donate $100 to an ALS charity (Lou Gehrig's Disease) OR, if you can't make that much of a donation, to give less AND pour a bucket of ice over your head. You record yourself doing that, then you challenge others to do the same. Most folks are giving AND donating, and the result has been phenomenal. I did it over the weekend (as usual, I put my own twist on it: I auctioned off the opportunity for someone else to pour the bucket over my head. Ended up raising $450 that way). I'll post the video later. For those who are Facebook friends with me, you've probably already seen it. If you've done it, post the video. I'd love to see it.

Appreciate those kind words, sir.

This 1996 film produced an Oscar-nominated song and was generally well-liked. It was written and directed by one of the supporting actors, a major star. An interesting bit of trivia: one of the major characters in the film is never named. In fact, at the end of the movie, we get one of those "what happened to them after the story" updates, and this character is referred to simply as "T.B. Player," which is not a name. You realize that when you decipher what "T.B." stands for.

I try not to submit lengthy posts from my phone or tablet, because it's not as easy. I'm in front of a keyboard now. So I want to address a few things johniam said. That's not what I said. What I said was that the Bible is rather obviously a product of its time, offering no indication that they were written by anyone with a knowledge of science, history, geology, geography, meteorology or (most certainly) astronomy. Period. So if I had a book in front of me that told me the moon is made of green cheese, I would conclude that the book was written by someone who had no understanding of what the moon is made of. It's that simple, and misrepresenting what I said to fit your own preconceived narrative of what I'm trying to say is fundamentally dishonest. Not in error, dishonest. As Bob Dole once said, "Stop lying about my record." I would like to know what definition of "faith" johniam is working with. I ask this because there's a common definition, and there's the various definitions we all worked with and under in (and out) of TWI. So before I challenge what johniam says about me having "faith," I'd like to know what he means. That said, the notion that it takes faith NOT to believe something is incorrect by definition, given that faith is believing. By definition, it takes the absence of faith NOT to believe something. If you believe the devil is behind what's happening in Ferguson, that takes faith (namely, faith that there is a devil who is capable of such results). I lack that faith. I believe it's people, and that belief is based on the evidence: people are behind every action we see coming from Ferguson. So it's not "faith" in the sense johniam appears to be using that word (again, I need his definition to be sure). I don't believe I am morally superior to any of you. Nor do I believe I am more intelligent. I do believe I am morally superior to the Bible, and I believe most of you are as well. The fact that you don't go around stoning Sabbath breakers is enough evidence of that for me. I do not accept the authority or moral superiority of the Bible. If you'd like to have that discussion, I'm game. But it is not a reflection on what I think of YOU. Quite the opposite. As I said, I believe you share the quality of being morally superior to the Bible. I know this offends, and that's unavoidable. It is my personal opinion about the Bible which I will gladly defend if asked. I do not think I am morally superior to johniam or anyone else. I do think we are all morally superior to the writers of the Bible [by current standards]. We would never tolerate the barbarism of the Old Testament law, and as believers, we resorted to some pretty healthy mental gymnastics to explain that barbarism away. I reached the point where I could not do that anymore. I am not asking ANYONE to take that journey with me. But if you're going to go around making FALSE ACCUSATIONS about how I consider myself above you, then you are kind of forcing my hand. Just saying.