Bible Discussion: Truthful Answer To A Trolls Question.

Truthful Answer To A Trolls Question.
Posts: 27

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Mark Richardson
2004-03-02 21:21:49 EST
A certain troll asked:

*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?

He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)

And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)

Let's list the actual reasons.

The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :

(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)

(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.

(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).

(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.

(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)

Any others?

I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.

I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
It's more direct and honest.

Mark.

* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
truthful. 8-)

NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
can help us be better, stronger and smarter.





--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------

The Church Of The Painful Truth
2004-03-02 21:33:21 EST

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
> A certain troll asked:
>
> *** Evidence for God***
> There is none, so why ask for it?
>
> He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
> (most of the replies didn't answer the question)
>
> And I thought:
> Why not just answer the question truthfully?
> What harm could it do?
> 8-)
>
> Let's list the actual reasons.
>
> The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
> God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
> they actually *want* evidence) but because :
>
> (1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
> (to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
>
> (2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
> the seeds of doubt.
>
> (3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
> thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
> see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
> conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
> perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
>
> (4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
> argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
> something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
> "burden of proof" and related stuff.
>
> (5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
> beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
> the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
> person)
>
> Any others?
>
> I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
> never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
>
> I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
> and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
> It's more direct and honest.
>
> Mark.
>
> * I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
> truthful. 8-)
>
> NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
> and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
> following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
> can help us be better, stronger and smarter.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
>
> Member of S.M.A.S.H.
> (Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------

You see the key here fool is *truthful*.You just slipped in their **** :-)



Mark Richardson
2004-03-02 22:07:39 EST
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:33:21 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
<*m@Nomarketing.com> wrote:

<snip>

You are not *the* troll - you are a different troll.

Mark.

--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------

The Church Of The Painful Truth
2004-03-02 22:14:22 EST

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:70ja4092ri3bkk5vrb3ne66bskr13mn8fk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:33:21 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
> <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You are not *the* troll - you are a different troll.
>
> Mark.
>
> --
> Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
>
> Member of S.M.A.S.H.
> (Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------

+I'm just trying to help a fool, that's all+



ZenIsWhen
2004-03-03 05:42:47 EST

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
> A certain troll asked:
>
> *** Evidence for God***
> There is none, so why ask for it?
>
> He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
> (most of the replies didn't answer the question)

Hmmmm.I answered, in effect, - There is none, so why bellow about god being
a fact.
That was honest.


>
> And I thought:
> Why not just answer the question truthfully?
> What harm could it do?
> 8-)
>
> Let's list the actual reasons.
>
> The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
> God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
> they actually *want* evidence) but because :

The truth is some atheists, and some believers, ask bellowing idiots to
support THEIR claims that god actuialy exists!


>
> (1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
> (to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)

No - they are defending themselves (their opinions, and at times their
freedoms) by making these bellowing idiots realize that not only their
"beliefs" just "beliefs" - but their zealous RELIGIOUS' beliefs do NOT rule
the world!

>
> (2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
> the seeds of doubt.

As opposed to the "seeds of ignorance based absoluteness"?

>
> (3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
> thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
> see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
> conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
> perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).

The atheist may be interested in god just as much as a theist. Sadly, since
there is no valid evidence of ANY god - there is nothing for the atheist to
"believe". They CERTAINLY aren't interested in blindly following whatever
religious insanity that just happens to be popular at the time!



>
> (4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
> argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
> something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
> "burden of proof" and related stuff.

Since there is NO valid evidence to suport ANY god - it is the theist zealot
who MUST, by default, resort to word games, mind games, and idiotic,
invented, arguments to either support an unsupportable position - or
fraudulently attack the opposition.

>
> (5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
> beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
> the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
> person)

The atheist believes what can be supported.
No religious zealot's argments have ever been supported.
You're acting like being based in reality is a crime!






JPG
2004-03-03 06:40:44 EST
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:21:49 GMT, Mark Richardson
<*n@die.spammers.die> wrote:

>A certain troll asked:
>
>*** Evidence for God***
>There is none, so why ask for it?
>
>He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
>(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
>
>And I thought:
>Why not just answer the question truthfully?
>What harm could it do?
>8-)
>
>Let's list the actual reasons.
>
>The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
>God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
>they actually *want* evidence) but because :
>
>(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
>(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
>
>(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
>the seeds of doubt.
>
>(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
>thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
>see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
>conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
>perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
>
>(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
>argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
>something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
>"burden of proof" and related stuff.
>
>(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
>beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
>the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
>person)
>
>Any others?
>
>I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
>never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
>
>I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
>and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
>It's more direct and honest.
>
>Mark.
>
>* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
>truthful. 8-)
>
>NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
>and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
>following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
>can help us be better, stronger and smarter.


Good points well put over Mark. Most theist/atheist arguments usually end in
stalemate and perhaps we need to be more original in our responses.

JPG


Pastor Dave
2004-03-03 08:16:09 EST
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:21:49 GMT, Mark Richardson
<*n@die.spammers.die> spake thusly:

>A certain troll asked:
>
>*** Evidence for God***
>There is none, so why ask for it?
>
>He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
>(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
>
>And I thought:
>Why not just answer the question truthfully?
>What harm could it do?
>8-)
>
>Let's list the actual reasons.
>
>The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
>God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
>they actually *want* evidence) but because :
>
>(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
>(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
>
>(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
>the seeds of doubt.
>
>(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
>thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
>see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
>conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
>perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
>
>(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
>argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
>something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
>"burden of proof" and related stuff.
>
>(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
>beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
>the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
>person)
>
>Any others?
>
>I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
>never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
>
>I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
>and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
>It's more direct and honest.
>
>Mark.
>
>* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
>truthful. 8-)
>
>NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
>and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
>following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
>can help us be better, stronger and smarter.

Well, that was honest and I appreciate it. I would
only disagree with one point. I don't think you have
the empirical evidence to back up what you believe
about certain things, but that's another discussion. I
just wanted to make that clear for accuracy, since I do
agree with your statements otherwise.



± Pastor Dave Raymond ±

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

JessHC
2004-03-03 10:07:12 EST
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com>...
> A certain troll asked:
>
> *** Evidence for God***
> There is none, so why ask for it?
>
> He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
> (most of the replies didn't answer the question)
>
> And I thought:
> Why not just answer the question truthfully?
> What harm could it do?
> 8-)
>
> Let's list the actual reasons.
>
> The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
> God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
> they actually *want* evidence) but because :
>
> (1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
> (to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
>
> (2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
> the seeds of doubt.
>
> (3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
> thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
> see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
> conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
> perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
>
> (4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
> argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
> something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
> "burden of proof" and related stuff.
>
> (5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
> beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
> the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
> person)
>
> Any others?
>
> I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
> never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
>
> I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
> and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
> It's more direct and honest.
>
> Mark.
>
> * I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
> truthful. 8-)
>
> NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
> and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
> following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
> can help us be better, stronger and smarter.

Well, personally, I don't believe it's possible to know with certainty
there are no gods, and therefore it's impossible to know with
certainty there is no evidence for any gods. It's just in the nature
of the universe, because it's such a big place; nobody can know
everything. That does not, however, mean I *believe* that gods exist;
I think the possibility is *extrememly* unlikely, but I can't declare
that it's impossible. Therefore, since I wish to maintain a sceptical
but still open mind, I ask for evidence. Just because I've never seen
objective evidence supporting the existence of any gods doesn't mean
that evidence doesn't exist, but until it is, I can truthfully say I
see no evidence, and therefore have no reason to believe in any gods
I've ever heard of. Does that fall under number 5?

Kate
2004-03-03 11:08:08 EST
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:21:49 GMT, Mark Richardson
<*n@die.spammers.die> wrote:

>A certain troll asked:
>
>*** Evidence for God***
>There is none, so why ask for it?
>
>He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
>(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
>
>And I thought:
>Why not just answer the question truthfully?
>What harm could it do?
>8-)
>
>Let's list the actual reasons.
>
>The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
>God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
>they actually *want* evidence) but because :
>
>(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
>(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
>
>(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
>the seeds of doubt.
>
>(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
>thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
>see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
>conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
>perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
>
>(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
>argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
>something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
>"burden of proof" and related stuff.
>
>(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
>beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
>the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
>person)
>
>Any others?


I am interested in why a theist has the opinions that they do. But
mostly I ask for evidence because they invariably make statements
claiming truth that they don't make for any other reason. As a
logical person, I point out the obvious inconsistencies.

Much of the argument here is a lame attempt at getting power by trolls
by proclaimation. If you accept their position without challenge,
that is declaring your submission. I don't know how common it is
among theists to do this, but I suspect it is one of the main reasons
many people join religions is that it gives them the leap over logic
to attain power that they were unable to attain otherwise. For once
they get to be the expert and looked up to.

ZenIsWhen
2004-03-03 14:09:27 EST

"JPG" <ME@PRIVACY.NET> wrote in message
news:ghgb401jh1lq0gk1n8hkr3jobjtiieedep@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:21:49 GMT, Mark Richardson
> <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
> >NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
> >and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
> >following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
> >can help us be better, stronger and smarter.
>
>
> Good points well put over Mark. Most theist/atheist arguments usually end
in
> stalemate and perhaps we need to be more original in our responses.
>
> JPG


After a while, it's easier to be blunt...and truthful.

Troll ..."Something stupid"

Response."That's stupid".

Troll .................... one of thousands of other troll responses.

*************


Alternative ...........

Troll......."something stupid".

Response.........."paragraph after paragraph of reality based logic, and
even scientifically accurate, detailed rebuttal.

Troll ..................."Something stupid".


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron