Religious

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

1. Gotta give up your anonymity to me, as I would to you.

No way. Atheists are the most hated group in America. Remember 2 Chronicles 15:13? You would out me and the next thing I have a lynch mob at my door, possibly lead by you.

Originally Posted by boxcar

2. "Peer pressure" or "court of public opinion" holds the stakes.

Not good enough. You are saying I should trust you, who repeatedly says all men are liars and then provides himself as an example. I want a real entity to have possession of the actual cash.

Originally Posted by boxcar

3. The existence of the post decides, remember?

Not good enough. Who decides whether the post exists, whether it meets the conditions of the wager? Past experience says you will point to some bullshit and claim it meets the conditions. So I want unbiased judges.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I dropped 50k today.

Bullshit!


In fact this whole bet thing is bullshit. It's a diversion. If you were honest you would simply give us the post number or the date.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

A few questions first.

• Who holds the stakes?

Me.



The two of you can send your certified cheques iin trust to me.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, I do. You're a moral relativist and as such you do what is right in your own eyes. All moral relativists do. Beyond this, I don't need to know any particulars.

No, Boxcar...you are wrong yet again. I am just a guy who doesn't blindly believe everything that he reads in books...that's all.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Me.



The two of you can send your certified cheques iin trust to me.

Want to PM me an address along with who the checque should be made out to?

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am in total disagreement with your argument. The atheist can easily assert that he doesn't believe in the existence of God...without stating that there isn't a "shred of evidence in the entire universe" to prove that he might be wrong in his assessment. Does the THEIST contend that there isn't a shred of evidence in the entire universe which might prove that HE might be wrong? We believe what we believe based on our own life's experiences...and the unknown to us evidence, which may or may not be hidden in some remote corner of the universe to prove or disprove our beliefs, need not enter into the picture. If we encounter such evidence in our own lives...then we alter our beliefs accordingly.

I don't have to acknowledge the existence of some divine being in order to say that I don't believe he exists. Instead of God creating man, it could just as easily be that it was man, in his terrified and vulnerable state, who created God...in order to explain the unexplainable...and to give himself some hope amidst the violent and unforgiving nature that he found himself immersed in.

This perfectly expresses my thought on the issue of whether GOD is a myth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No way. Atheists are the most hated group in America. Remember 2 Chronicles 15:13? You would out me and the next thing I have a lynch mob at my door, possibly lead by you.

Oh, please...cry me a river... On top of everything you suffer from acute paranoia and have a persecution complex.

And even I did such dastardly deed, by your own admission , neither you or anyone else has a moral right to survive (live). So, what's your beef?

Not good enough. You are saying I should trust you, who repeatedly says all men are liars and then provides himself as an example. I want a real entity to have possession of the actual cash.

I am a real entity. You don't believe I exist either?

Not good enough. Who decides whether the post exists, whether it meets the conditions of the wager? Past experience says you will point to some bullshit and claim it meets the conditions. So I want unbiased judges.

The conditions will be self-evident -- kinda like the self-refuting statement that I gave Thask three times -- but yet he couldn't figure out that there was something inherently wrong with it. Unbiased indeed.

The conditions are only two and will be fulfilled conditions will be obvious to all: The post exists and within that post I showed how atheism is a self-defeating world view. Of course, I don't expect you or anyone else here to agree, so your agreement to my argument is not a condition.

[quote]Bullshit!

Prove it.

In fact this whole bet thing is bullshit. It's a diversion. If you were honest you would simply give us the post number or the date.

I am honest. And I just honestly want to make some money off your unbridled arrogance and cockiness. What's wrong with that? This isn't a question of my honesty nearly as much as it is of your own your cowardice. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. You say the post doesn't exist. And I'm ready to disprove that negative to you. But it will cost you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No, Boxcar...you are wrong yet again. I am just a guy who doesn't blindly believe everything that he reads in books...that's all.

I don't believe everything. Just the truth. But because I'm a critical thinker, I know you're a moral relativist and so I know how such people think. Moral Relativism is older than dirt. There were lots of moral relativists in the bible and most people here are, also.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Me.



The two of you can send your certified cheques iin trust to me.

And I suppose you will want to deduct the vig from the winner, too, eh?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's time to put your money where your mouth is. You say the post doesn't exist. And I'm ready to disprove that negative to you. But it will cost you.

Fine. Let's just cut to the chase and I'll simply pay you for the information. PM me an address.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I am honest. And I just honestly want to make some money off your unbridled arrogance and cockiness. What's wrong with that?

What you want to do is make money off religion, just like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, et al.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Fine. Let's just cut to the chase and I'll simply pay you for the information. PM me an address.

Well, that's not hardly fair. This is supposed to be a bet. Payment should only come to the winner after the proof is submitted. You haven't lost yet...but of course, you will. Unlike you, I will trust you to pay up after you lose.

So how much can you afford to contribute toward my monthly budget?

[MutuelClerk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't have to acknowledge the existence of some divine being in order to say that I don't believe he exists. Instead of God creating man, it could just as easily be that it was man, in his terrified and vulnerable state, who created God...in order to explain the unexplainable...and to give himself some hope amidst the violent and unforgiving nature that he found himself immersed in.

Exactly. Well said. When you're a kid you're told if you aren't saved you will go to hell. So you buy into the program. At least I did, now as I get older it seems like a scam more and more. God is there because people are weak and it makes them feel good when they screw up to have a God to accept whatever screw ups they make. Religion is going to be the downfall of our society. And it wont be the non believers who bring it down. It will be the so called moral and righteous who do.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh, please...cry me a river... On top of everything you suffer from acute paranoia and have a persecution complex.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Do you think the Smalkowski family of Hardesty, Oklahoma were not persecuted?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And even I did such dastardly deed, by your own admission , neither you or anyone else has a moral right to survive (live). So, what's your beef?

The standard is not moral right but Darwinian advantage. Suicidal behavior is not a Darwinian advantage.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, that's not hardly fair. This is supposed to be a bet. Payment should only come to the winner after the proof is submitted. You haven't lost yet...but of course, you will. Unlike you, I will trust you to pay up after you lose.

So how much can you afford to contribute toward my monthly budget?

What I can afford and what I'd bet are not the same thing. Is your $2 window open?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Since boxcar has started posting here, he has parroted Norman Geisler an original champion of the law of non contradiction applied to where it does not belong and evidently the source of boxcarian logic.

http://apologeticjunkie.blogspot.com...tatements.html

These are "word-gamey" conundrums that play on language and mostly do not apply to real world topics. Statements like his " I don't write a word of English." and statements from the article linked are loaded with similar garbage. So this stuff is apologetics 101........Problem of course is philosophers such as Kant and Plato and most Religions are not easily reduced to these oversimplified apologetic word-rigged examples.

Another of Mr. Perfect's ploys is to set up the game by formulating ground rules and definitions.

This nonsensical gem requires we agree with him on what a sinner's understanding is, and what their "darkness" is Loaded with self defined terms. So yes it may be an example of something self-defeating, but if one falsely postulates 10 does not equal 10, then anyone who says 10 does equal 10,--- must be wrong by reason of on high boxcarian proclamations and self-defining specific definitions set up by boxcar to ensnare any one who wants an honest debate or discussion.

You're still chafing over the Law of Noncontradiction. I bet you hate that law, since there is no wiggle room to wiggle out of it.

And, yes, all worldly philosophies can easily be disproved the laws of logic. Look how easily Geisler dismantled Ayer's Logical Positivism which finds its ground in Hume!

And your "10+10" tale is another one of your lame analogies. If someone falsely postulates anything, then the laws of logic would unearth the falsehood. The laws of logic are designed to keep us on track to the truth -- not falsehood!