Iggy

So, since iNow can't do it, we'll just agree that in the future he'll stop comparing God to leprechaun erections and dragon poop. Because, that's a really stupid thing to do, and not something that can be scientifically explained in the least. It makes all of us atheists look bad.... But the cheer leading squad doesn't think so. Let's see how many -1's this post can get. You can't make an argument so you just do that. Let's do it. Let's count them. All you freakin cowards.

No, you didn't "ask". You "claimed". So, you simply don't remember? That's fine. I can go back and find the post... So there you are, and here I am. I'm a reasonable and rational person. Are you capable of proving the above claim? No, of course you can't. You can't even remember it.

Yeah, that seems fine. Go ahead and tell iNow to use that definition. Why are you asking me? He is the one using the word God and he is the one that refuses to move past its definition.... he is the one that asked. Go ahead and present your definition to him. I'm waiting to hear his response.

I was joking... my god. There is nothing you or I could say to each other of consequence. iNow made a comparison. He can't prove it. You can't prove it. It isn't provable. That's all there is to this. He needs to stop making the comparison.

An Australian guy. He was really engaging. Good guy. Offered me a smoke. Sure enough, I'm not sure what you have against Australian people... I guess that's your thing... No, if you can't show a difference between two things then you best not compare them. Eh? You're hardly trying. too funny

He can't prove it. You can't. It's all so much bluster. I'm an atheist, like you, but at least I can spot bullshit when I see it.

yeah, but I could ask you any number of stupid things It doesn't mean you have to answer. inow made the claim... he has to answer. No, that isn't right. He wasn't asking how corn pooping dragons were differing from God... he was saying that they were different. Either he can prove that they are, ore you you can. I welcome you to do it. I really do. But, I realize you're all bluster as well. You can't prove anything you've said. It's all well accepted bluster. Good for you. You've found your niche.

Agreed. iNow claimed that God was equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. I'll be happy to let him define it.

Again... "I must have missed the post where you proved that corn dog shitting dragons were equivalent to God. If you'd care to point me to it then I'll be happy to read it." waiting... no

I'm sorry, iNow. I must have missed the post where you proved that corn dog shitting dragons were equivalent to God. If you'd care to point me to it then I'll be happy to read it. Yeah, but you've believed things in your life that lack supporting empirical evidence, so that isn't it. I'm seeking more proof than the way things "appear" to you, because they don't appear that way to most people. Every other post you're comparing God to erections and dragon poop, and the cheer leading squad loves it every time you do it. You get all those +1's every time you do it. But, it's all empty and hollow. Scientifically you can't explain it in the least. It is exactly what I said: it's all bluster. Yeah, how many times have you asked people on this site to prove their claims? What if the only answer they could give you is "your request is unreasonable". My mere request has proven how empty your claims are.

No, iNow. You don't get to ask. You are the one saying that the two are equivalent. You have to prove their equivalence. You understand... you make a claim: you prove it. That's pretty basic. You don't get to ask, and it's something I've never seen you answer.

I'm afraid that doesn't help. To you, God is different from any claim you've ever accepted. If you can't say in words why it is substantively different then I just don't know what you're talking about. It's all bluster. No, that doesn't work. A lot of people grow up with background knowledge of God, and they end up thinking they see Jesus (or his surrogate) at some point in their life. So, of course they're going to believe. To them it isn't faith. It is a very real and solid thing. So the number of people who ask has some bearing on its validity? Interesting.

God, I like the way you talk. If faith, nor popularity, can serve as evidence of a claim then I can only ask what does. What serves as evidence of a claim? Tell me about it's falsifiability. Please, tell me about it's verifiability. Please, tell me what you're talking about.

If you put "if" in front of a false statement then it becomes a question. Honestly! This type of thing isn't worthy of discussion. Where is iNow? Hardly

Nobody believes it. Putting "if" in front of a false statement doesn't help anything. I could say... "If 2+1 = 9 then..." You understand that I just said something that was really stupid. That isn't too hard for you to understand, right?

Are you even following the thread? There is only one person comparing the two, and it is iNow. You don't get to ask why either is less absurd. Only he gets to answer why the two are exactly equivalent... because only he is comparing them. You're like the third person to ask that stupid question. "can't you prove that corn dog pooping dragons are different from God?". If you'd care to compare the two then I'll put you in the same boat as him, in the mean time, please butt out.

Again, you're the one claiming it. You're the one saying that your private invention which nobody believes is equal to that which the vast majority of humanity believes. It is up to you to prove it. You make the claim... you prove it. I can explain that as many times and in as many ways as you like. I can break it down into predict logic for you if you need. I can engage you Aristotelian-style and just ask you a ceaseless number of questions until you relent, if you like. One way or another, you are going to own the comparison you made. I compare faith in god to faith in your partner's fidelity today and you're able to give me a five point regurgitated layout of how the two are different... but at the same time you can't figure out how corn pooping dragons are different from God. Are you serious with this bullshit?

I see where you're coming from, but you are missing something more fundamental. The US is no more willing to fix this problem than anyone else. We've all become suddenly impotent. A mad dictator in the middle east is committing genocide (and using chemical weapons to do it)... meanwhile you're saying "what an embarrassment for the US" and John is saying "I think we need some American humility". You see the problem with that? Does anybody see the problem with that? I feel like I'm alone on this.

Well... that was my point until you compared corn pooping dragons to God, which seemed irrelevant... and then demanded Pears explain why the one was more likely than the other (when it was a comparison you insisted on). We should be asking you. But, we already know the answer to that. It's all emotion. Yeah, anybody except for the vast majority of humanity. Sure. That's all fine.

While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, I would like to know more about the logic and reason you applied to arrive at it. So, the question to you regarding the above is... Why? I can't speak for Pears, but I can say that your argument is patently absurd. This discussion got started in post 184 where I asked "If we can't trust the content of an anecdotal, subjective account told by a person, then how can we trust the subjective accounts told by lots of people?" Your response was the following: Which couldn't have been worse. Nobody says that there are "invisible dragons that poop cotton candy and edible corn dogs". It wasn't even worth replying to. Now you're honestly asking Pears why something that billions of people believe is more credible than what you made up that nobody believes. Why is something that billions of people believe more likely than something nobody believes? I mean... you're honestly asking that... and sticking to it like it's a good point. I can't even figure the point out... What billions of people believe isn't credible because nobody believes this thing I made up that isn't believable... seems to be your point. You're going to have to try much harder.

Is it possible, though? Can weapons inspectors even begin to do that kind of work in the middle of a war? I don't think so -- I think there would have to be a cease fire, and that isn't about to happen. It sounded like Kerry knew it would be impossible when he said it, and maybe the only reason Russia then Syria picked up on it was because they knew it would be impossible too. Without a UN peacekeeping force, I'm sure UN weapons inspectors couldn't do it, and Russia is capable of making sure no such force exists. Speaking of which... The US isn't proposing to get rid of the dictator, because you are right. That, in and of itself, would be a disaster. The way it should work... about a year ago Assad needed toppled with a NATO or UN force. Then a massive UN peacekeeping force needed to move in. Scold the wrongful parties, commit to humanitarian aid, and generally put things back together. But, that can't happen under constant Russian veto, and most of the world, too, has decided in the last few years that intervention just isn't worth it. It is better, everyone figures, to let the rebels die (for the sake of stability), then we can sadly mourn their loss (just like Rwanda), because fighting for the living (like Bosnia) is messy and difficult. It's easier to let the innocent die, than to fight for the living. That is what international policy has boiled down to. It's nauseating.

You should take as a compliment that your arguments are so good the only reply you get is 'yeah, but you're religious aren't you'. Almost like we've run out of strawmen so we're looking for ad hominems

Not usually, no. It very much depends where you are on the planet. Maybe that was the mistaken assumption. The sun very rarely sets vertically.

The best example that comes to mind: The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[45] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[46] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag." League of Militant Atheists -- Activities As an atheist who frequently reminds religious people about religion's bloody past, I feel like I have to own the above. It really was awful what they did to the clergy in the soviet union. They didn't just kill them... they killed them slow.

August 18, 2011: the US, Britain, France, Germany and the EU demand Assad resign over his actions. Three months later the Arab League kicked Syria out of the organization -- an unprecedented move -- so appalled they were with Assad's crackdown. Everybody else figured out what was going on two years ago. Everyone at least recognized who the bad guy was. Now, you aren't sure. Fine. It's a framing effect. It's fine.