Answers To Atheism

SaraJarvis · Jul 29, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
You are funny, you really are funny. You run out of ridiculous arguments and in order to save face you accuse me of plagiarizing.

Guess what... if you are so keen on who is typing what on these forums, do you subject your fellow atheist's posts to the same rigorous standards?

I doubt you do.

And guess what? Im going to continue using references and sources for my posts and discussions here because that is what they are for. Just because atheists can come up with no good arguments for their position does not mean that I cannot use good arguments from others who learned what they did from those who taught them and so on and so forth.

So if you have a problem with this, I suggest you leave the forum, or find some better arguments to support your position. As it stands, your pathetic attempt at grasping for straws due to a lack of solid argument is actually making your position even more and more groundless.

And since these posts are veering from the mainline of the OP, I will not be responding to your accusations any further. Goodnight.

You are plagiarizing. We're not talking about the quoting here, although you do need a lesson in that, but I have run several of your posts through my university's system, and all of them have come up with strong plagiarizing warnings. You took a chunk of text written by someone else, and then changed ONE word and tried passed it off as yours. That is plagiarizing. If you wanted to use that statement, then you should have quoted it, and referenced the source. I don't understand what is so difficult to grasp here.

This might make this a little more clear:

http://science.widener.edu/svb/essay/plagiar.html

Elioenai26 · Jul 29, 2012

SaraJarvis said:
You are plagiarizing. We're not talking about the quoting here, although you do need a lesson in that, but I have run several of your posts through my university's system, and all of them have come up with strong plagiarizing warnings. You took a chunk of text written by someone else, and then changed ONE word and tried passed it off as yours. That is plagiarizing. If you wanted to use that statement, then you should have quoted it, and referenced the source. I don't understand what is so difficult to grasp here.

This might make this a little more clear:

What is Plagiarism

Thanks for your help Sara, and as I have stated, I am going to continue to use whatever resources I feel are pertinent to the discussion.

I am not in a university

I am not in a philosophy course

I am not writing what I am writing for any particular curriculum

I am not writing what I am so that I can turn it in and have you or anyone else "grade" it

I am not writing to please you

I am writing what I am and posting what I am to simply show how outlandishly foolish the atheistic naturalistic position is and I am using credible, reliable, scientific, and philosophic resources prepared by those who are most knowledgeable in their respective fields of study.

Now as I have informed Todd, if you have a problem with this, then leave, or come better prepared for defending you position.

Thank you.

Gracchus · Jul 29, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
Thanks for your help Sara, and as I have stated, I am going to continue to use whatever resources I feel are pertinent to the discussion.

I am not in a university

I am not in a philosophy course

I am not writing what I am writing for any particular curriculum

I am not writing what I am so that I can turn it in and have you or anyone else "grade" it

I am not writing to please you

And you might add (although it is already apparent), that:

You are not constrained by honesty.

You are not constrained by reason.

I am writing what I am and posting what I am to simply show how outlandishly foolish the atheistic naturalistic position is ...

And yet all you have shown is your own intellectual dishonesty and ignorance. And you don't even realize it!

... and I am using credible, reliable, scientific, and philosophic resources prepared by those who are most knowledgeable in their respective fields of study.

Yes, it was prepared by folks who have advanced degrees in "gulling the mark", and "filling the collection plate".

Now as I have informed Todd, if you have a problem with this, then leave, or come better prepared for defending you position.

He doesn't have to prepare. You have come nowhere near his position. And even if he did leave, you can be counted on to destroy yourself.

:wave:

Elioenai26 · Jul 29, 2012

Gracchus said:
And you might add (although it is already apparent), that:

You are not constrained by honesty.

You are not constrained by reason.

And yet all you have shown is your own intellectual dishonesty and ignorance. And you don't even realize it!

Yes, it was prepared by folks who have advanced degrees in "gulling the mark", and "filling the collection plate".

He doesn't have to prepare. You have come nowhere near his position. And even if he did leave, you can be counted on to destroy yourself.

And to you, I shall say the same:

Come prepared to defend your position, or don't bother to post. It will save all of us all valuble time.

Thank you.

Gracchus · Jul 29, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
And to you, I shall say the same:

Come prepared to defend your position, or don't bother to post. It will save all of us all valuble time.

Exactly what do you think is my position? Let's make sure you know where I am, before you begin your assault. Otherwise you are likely to rush an empty hilltop. (Which probably wouldn't prevent you from proclaiming victory!)

:wave:

Tnmusicman · Jul 29, 2012

Elgibbor said:
It is a long story, but the late Peter Steele, a musical hero of mine, summed it up quite well:
There are no atheists in foxholes, they say, and I was a foxhole atheist for a long time. But after going through a midlife crisis and having many things change very quickly, it made me realize my mortality. And when you start to think about death, you start to think about whats after it. And then you start hoping there is a God. For me, its a frightening thought to go nowhere. I also cant believe that people like Stalin and Hitler are gonna go to the same place as Mother Teresa.[

"love you to death" was a favorite of mine.

Tnmusicman · Jul 29, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
I too my brother, share a similar story.

In my youth, I heartily studied string theory and quantum mechanics, hoping, if by chance, I might be able to come up with an explanation of the universe sans God. It was my hope that I might be able to find a way that the cosmos could have began apart from God so that I would not need not appeal to Him as the Cause. I read Stephen Hawking's works and I came to the point where I wanted a life without God... and I got what I wanted.

Needless to say, it was not a life that was really desirable.

But God was merciful to me and since That Day He has shown me wondrous and marvelous things and I am so happy to hear that God has worked in your life as well.

I love you and hope to speak with you again my brother.

Isnt the patience and agape love of Christ amazing ?? We can sit around and try to plan our lives without God and God just says "you go ahead......I'll wait".

Gracchus · Jul 29, 2012

Elgibbor said:
It is a long story, but the late Peter Steele, a musical hero of mine, summed it up quite well:
“There are no atheists in foxholes, they say, and I was a foxhole atheist for a long time. But after going through a midlife crisis and having many things change very quickly, it made me realize my mortality. And when you start to think about death, you start to think about what’s after it. And then you start hoping there is a God. For me, it’s a frightening thought to go nowhere.

I was in the army and I knew guys like you. The attack comes and you're crouching in the bottom of the foxhole, praying, pooping, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing your pants.

I also can’t believe that people like Stalin and Hitler are gonna go to the same place as Mother Teresa.”[

You mean there is actually something you can't believe? Whooda thot it?

Elioenai26 said:
I too my brother, share a similar story.

In my youth, I heartily studied string theory and quantum mechanics, hoping, if by chance, I might be able to come up with an explanation of the universe sans God. It was my hope that I might be able to find a way that the cosmos could have began apart from God so that I would not need not appeal to Him as the Cause.

If that's why you were studying science, it is no wonder that you learned so little.

I read Stephen Hawking's works and I came to the point where I wanted a life without God... and I got what I wanted.

Needless to say, it was not a life that was really desirable.

Oh pray tell! Share the squalid details!

But God was merciful to me and since That Day He has shown me wondrous and marvelous things and I am so happy to hear that God has worked in your life as well.

So, he connected you with a dope pusher?

Look, this is a thread where you are to refute or support atheism. It is in the Philosophy Forum, so you are expected to try at least to use reasonable arguments and defined terms. There is, I believe, a forum over in the Christians Only section, for mutual pleasuring.

:wave:

Eudaimonist · Jul 30, 2012

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who has no thoughts of his own, but instead finds that he must quote mine others in order to make what should be his case. I might as well surf the Internet.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Davian · Jul 30, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
Thanks for your help Sara, and as I have stated, I am going to continue to use whatever resources I feel are pertinent to the discussion.

I am not in a university

I am not in a philosophy course

I am not writing what I am writing for any particular curriculum

I am not writing what I am so that I can turn it in and have you or anyone else "grade" it

I am not writing to please you

I am writing what I am and posting what I am to simply show how outlandishly foolish the atheistic naturalistic position is and I am using credible, reliable, scientific, and philosophic resources prepared by those who are most knowledgeable in their respective fields of study.

Now as I have informed Todd, if you have a problem with this, then leave, or come better prepared for defending you position.

Thank you.

There are, if you care, site rules that do apply:

● Members shall not make posts which violate the copyrights of others or promote another work as your own. Quoted portions of any work, with in reason, must not exceed 20% of the total work. Materials owned by the Associated Press shall not be quoted using more than one sentence. All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the web page from which it was taken.

KCfromNC · Jul 30, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
So you would consider yourself to be simply a collection of natural processes functioning autonomously on their own. That jayem is'nt really a person in the sense that he has a mind, will, or emotions.

You're assuming that mind, will and emotions aren't [a collection of] natural processes. Why?

Elioenai26 · Jul 30, 2012

Eudaimonist said:
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who has no thoughts of his own, but instead finds that he must quote mine others in order to make what should be his case. I might as well surf the Internet.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark, the excuses you have given for discontinuing discussion are faulty for several reasons. They shall be enumerated below.

1. You have insinuated that I have no thoughts of my own with regards to the topics of discussion. What you fail to understand is the means by which we come to have the thoughts that we do. We all acquire knowledge by assimilating information from numerous and diverse sources primarily outside of ourselves. We read, listen, observe etc. etc. and usually we retain that which agrees with our position.

Now, what does this mean? It means very simply that no one can claim that all of their thoughts are completely their own. I cannot say this, nor can you or anyone else. If you really were to hold to your position, then you would never be able to legitimately engage in discussion because you would be doing so according to the views and information you have gathered and assimilated primarily from others.

2. You accuse me of quote mining and using other people's cases as my own is wrong. Now, if you actually remain faithful to your own statement above, you would once again have tied your own hands and rendered yourself unable to ever engage in discussion again because you would be doing so according to the views of others which you espouse, which is the very thing you have accused me of.

For example, your usage of the Steady State Oscillating Universe Model is not your own but it belongs to someone who, years ago dreamed it up and you and everyone who liked it decided to use it as their own naturalistic explanation for the universe.

So at the very least Mark, you would be a hypocrite if you really used the above excuses and lived by their insinuations.

You also would be prohibited from legitimately using any other atheistic naturalistic resources and references in your discussions because as we maintained before, they are not completely, nor originally yours.

This double standard would render your position defenseless which definitely is not helping your already incredibly vulnerable views.

So it appears that these excuses that you and others are espousing for discontinuing discussion are nothing more than vain attempts at relieving yourselves from the burden of substantiating the outlandish naturalistic claims and explanations that you have pre-committed yourselves to.

sandwiches · Jul 30, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
Mark, the excuses you have given for discontinuing discussion are faulty for several reasons. They shall be enumerated below.

1. You have insinuated that I have no thoughts of my own with regards to the topics of discussion. What you fail to understand is the means by which we come to have the thoughts that we do. We all acquire knowledge by assimilating information from numerous and diverse sources primarily outside of ourselves. We read, listen, observe etc. etc. and usually we retain that which agrees with our position.

Now, what does this mean? It means very simply that no one can claim that all of their thoughts are completely their own. I cannot say this, nor can you or anyone else. If you really were to hold to your position, then you would never be able to legitimately engage in discussion because you would be doing so according to the views and information you have gathered and assimilated primarily from others.

2. You accuse me of quote mining and using other people's cases as my own is wrong. Now, if you actually remain faithful to your own statement above, you would once again have tied your own hands and rendered yourself unable to ever engage in discussion again because you would be doing so according to the views of others which you espouse, which is the very thing you have accused me of.

For example, your usage of the Steady State Oscillating Universe Model is not your own but it belongs to someone who, years ago dreamed it up and you and everyone who liked it decided to use it as their own naturalistic explanation for the universe.

So at the very least Mark, you would be a hypocrite if you really used the above excuses and lived by their insinuations.

You also would be prohibited from legitimately using any other atheistic naturalistic resources and references in your discussions because as we maintained before, they are not completely, nor originally yours.

This double standard would render your position defenseless which definitely is not helping your already incredibly vulnerable views.

So it appears that these excuses that you and others are espousing for discontinuing discussion are nothing more than vain attempts at relieving yourselves from the burden of substantiating the outlandish naturalistic claims and explanations that you have pre-committed yourselves to.

This is a very long-winded excuse for plagiarizing and quote mining.

Just stop playing stupid and act like an adult. Don't pretend to not know the difference between proper quoting/using others ideas to explain or expand your own and plagiarizing.

Elioenai26 · Jul 30, 2012

sandwiches said:
This is a very long-winded excuse for plagiarizing and quote mining.

Just stop playing stupid and act like an adult. Don't pretend to not know the difference between proper quoting/using others ideas to explain or expand your own and plagiarizing.

Thank you Mr. sandwiches for your input in this discussion.

If you have anything constructive to add to this thread, please feel free to do so. We welcome your thoughts. Just make sure you can substantiate them and be sure not to use anyone else's work, ideas, views, opinions, quotes, words, or anything else that is not wholly and originally yours.

Have a nice day!

variant · Jul 30, 2012

Desk trauma said:
I have seen the "no atheists in foxholes" line turned around quite effectively to "there are no Christians in fox holes" after all if god is protecting you or paradise is one bullet wound away why oh why would you jump in that hole when the fire fight starts?

You are working too hard. The canard of "no atheists in foxholes" is simply untrue. It is something believers say to make themselves feel better without thinking about wether it is actually truthful.

It simply asserts that there aren't atheists in the military, which is both bigoted and untrue and diminishes the service of atheists.

Actual data about atheists in the military:

Elioenai26 · Jul 30, 2012

variant said:
You are working too hard. The canard of "no atheists in foxholes" is simply untrue. It is something believers say to make themselves feel better without thinking about wether it is actually truthful.

It simply asserts that there aren't atheists in the military, which is both bigoted and untrue and diminishes the service of atheists.

Actual data about atheists in the military:

The fact that you guys are talking about the military in the manner that you are, shows that you are completely missing the broader meaning of the usage of the word "foxhole" in the provided quote.

His point is not that there are no atheists in the military guys! The point is that when one is confronted with the awareness of the immanence of death, they definently are not going to be concerned about remaining true to their atheistic philosophy! They are no doubt going to be concerned about whether or not they are ready for that final, unavoidable, moment in which they are going to cease to live in this world as well as the possible ramifications that may come as a result of living according to their most valued views.

variant · Jul 30, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
The fact that you guys are talking about the military in the manner that you are, shows that you are completely missing the broader meaning of the usage of the word "foxhole" in the provided quote.

His point is not that there are no atheists in the military guys! The point is that when one is confronted with the awareness of the immanence of death, they definently are not going to be concerned about remaining true to their atheistic philosophy! They are no doubt going to be concerned about whether or not they are ready for that final, unavoidable, moment in which they are going to cease to live in this world as well as the possible ramifications that may come as a result of living according to their most valued views.

I was almost hit by a car the other day, I'm still an atheist and was an atheist at that moment in time. It was just rather unfortunate that that guy took a left nearly into my drivers side door.

It's more to the point that the people who dug foxholes were part of a group of people no more or less likely to be atheists than the general population.

No one took a survey of people in foxholes to check the bigoted assumption you are makeing.

A chaplain coined this unthinking line and it has never been shown to be correct. The fact that you or anyone else would parrot it says something about your unthinking analysis.

If your point is that people can often be scared into religion I will take it as true. Fear is one of the major motivateing factors that make weak people religious. It is one of the reasons that there is religion in the first place.

You might be religious because you are afraid, but that dosen't mean there are no atheists in foxholes.

Tinker Grey · Jul 30, 2012

I strongly recommend the documentary/re-enactment Touching the Void. One of the more moving moments is when one of the climbers (it's about a mountain climbing incident) finds himself at the bottom of a crevasse with his leg snapped. The man comments that with his leg snapped, all alone, with no hope of rescue, calling out to God never entered his mind.

I first saw this movie when I was still a Christian. That moment was quite stunning to me.

sandwiches · Jul 30, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
Thank you Mr. sandwiches for your input in this discussion.

If you have anything constructive to add to this thread, please feel free to do so. We welcome your thoughts. Just make sure you can substantiate them and be sure not to use anyone else's work, ideas, views, opinions, quotes, words, or anything else that is not wholly and originally yours.

Have a nice day!

Keep on plagiarizing like a player, dude!

Elioenai26 · Jul 31, 2012

variant said:
I was almost hit by a car the other day, I'm still an atheist and was an atheist at that moment in time. It was just rather unfortunate that that guy took a left nearly into my drivers side door.

It's more to the point that the people who dug foxholes were part of a group of people no more or less likely to be atheists than the general population.

No one took a survey of people in foxholes to check the bigoted assumption you are makeing.

A chaplain coined this unthinking line and it has never been shown to be correct. The fact that you or anyone else would parrot it says something about your unthinking analysis.

If your point is that people can often be scared into religion I will take it as true. Fear is one of the major motivateing factors that make weak people religious. It is one of the reasons that there is religion in the first place.

You might be religious because you are afraid, but that dosen't mean there are no atheists in foxholes.

I find it quite ironic how offensive and indignant atheists get when their unsubstantiated views are challenged and yet, when they challenge a Christian's views, which are the only one's that have a basis in rational, logical, reality, they seem confused as to how they could be offended?

This advocation of a hypocritical double-standard is not becoming of men and women who pride themselves on being objective.

Answers To Atheism

Newbie

Elioenai26

Guest

Senior Veteran

Elioenai26

Guest

Senior Veteran

Sinner Saved By Grace

Sinner Saved By Grace

Senior Veteran

I believe in life before death!

fallible

Regular Member

Elioenai26

Guest

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Elioenai26

Guest

Happy Cat

Elioenai26

Guest

Happy Cat

Wanderer

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Elioenai26

Guest

Similar threads