Searching for GOD...

[Spud]

As far as I have seen RD is always polite. He simply successfully rebuts all "God" arguments. I have never seean him answer anybody rudely.

Totally agree. If rose can find an interview or debate where he is discourteous , I will be surprised.

Well I thought this was quite rude.

http://youtu.be/6mmskXXetcg

He belittles people.

That's rude.

I don't think it was rude. Interestingly he did admit that he could be wrong ('anybody could be wrong') - was what followed a cover up?

[Alan Burns]

To some extent, I am reminded of a priest who was a friend of the family, who would come round and visit till late telling jokes and being the life and soul but in the pulpitc his sermons were dour black obsidian with no humanity. As you were discussing on the thread about meeting up, we are different in differing situations and we go back to old comforting tropes when we are not fully relaxed.

Your comment reminds me of an interesting character I came across three years ago.
He is a very down to earth, no nonsense Scotsman who enjoys a few drinks with his mates, loves his wife and kids (though they often drive him to distraction), hates shopping and had just finished 23 years of service with the RAF, much of which was spent in the war zone of Afghanistan.  During his service he came close to death on several occasions, but lived to tell the tale.  On leaving, he followed a vocation (calling) to become a Deacon in the Catholic church, and was assigned to help out in our local parish in Stokesley.  He is now renouned for his sermons in which he is able to bring Gospel stories to life by relating them to real life instances from his adventurous past.  Despite being dyslexic and terrified of public speaking, he humbly accepts that God has given him this great gift of interpreting the Gospels, which he has used to the full in the last three years.  This week he moved on to become a chaplain with the RAF where I am sure he will continue to impress all those he meets with his ability to witness to his Christian faith.

[BashfulAnthony]

As far as I have seen RD is always polite. He simply successfully rebuts all "God" arguments. I have never seean him answer anybody rudely.

Totally agree. If rose can find an interview or debate where he is discourteous , I will be surprised.

Well I thought this was quite rude.

http://youtu.be/6mmskXXetcg

He belittles people.

He answered in exactly the same tone as he was questioned. "What if you're wrong?" If he belittled the questioner, then she had done the same to him.

He did not answer the question.  He avoided it by trying to lump Christianity in with the most primitive religion he could think of just to belittle the girl who dared to suggest that he might be wrong.  His tone might have been polite but the content certainly was not.

Christianity is primitive in many respects!

I don't suppose you would try and substantiate that remark?  No, I didn't think so!

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear that is so very FUNNY. He would wipe the floor with you, as the non believers do on this forum! I think you are in total denial about how silly your posts are!

No doubt if my debate with Dawkins was done in front of an audience of dedicated atheists, he would keep scoring trivial brownie points with his followers who would indeed decide that he had wiped the floor with me. 

However if the dabate was done in front of a more neutral audience I would hope I could do a little better.  Indeed I would hope to do better even if there were no audience at all.

I think your judgement of my performance on this board is more than a little biased.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear that is so very FUNNY. He would wipe the floor with you, as the non believers do on this forum! I think you are in total denial about how silly your posts are!

No doubt if my debate with Dawkins was done in front of an audience of dedicated atheists, he would keep scoring trivial brownie points with his followers who would indeed decide that he had wiped the floor with me. 

However if the dabate was done in front of a more neutral audience I would hope I could do a little better.  Indeed I would hope to do better even if there were no audience at all.

I think your judgement of my performance on this board is more than a little biased.

Your performance here is irrelevant as has been pointed out. You appear to have no real  speaking experience. If you want to suddenly claim that you with your god might convince Dickie in private then that seems either to claim that your god has had no one to speak to him directly for the last 60 years or that you have a special skill.

Given that I find you extraordinarily naive since you have been here, what is it you think you might have?

[BashfulAnthony]

Oh dear that is so very FUNNY. He would wipe the floor with you, as the non believers do on this forum! I think you are in total denial about how silly your posts are!

No doubt if my debate with Dawkins was done in front of an audience of dedicated atheists, he would keep scoring trivial brownie points with his followers who would indeed decide that he had wiped the floor with me. 

However if the dabate was done in front of a more neutral audience I would hope I could do a little better.  Indeed I would hope to do better even if there were no audience at all.

I think your judgement of my performance on this board is more than a little biased.

Your performance here is irrelevant as has been pointed out. You appear to have no real  speaking experience. If you want to suddenly claim that you with your god might convince Dickie in private then that seems either to claim that your god has had no one to speak to him directly for the last 60 years or that you have a special skill.

Given that I find you extraordinarily naive since you have been here, what is it you think you might have?

Or is it Dick Dawkins?   

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear that is so very FUNNY. He would wipe the floor with you, as the non believers do on this forum! I think you are in total denial about how silly your posts are!

No doubt if my debate with Dawkins was done in front of an audience of dedicated atheists, he would keep scoring trivial brownie points with his followers who would indeed decide that he had wiped the floor with me. 

However if the dabate was done in front of a more neutral audience I would hope I could do a little better.  Indeed I would hope to do better even if there were no audience at all.

I think your judgement of my performance on this board is more than a little biased.

Your performance here is irrelevant as has been pointed out. You appear to have no real  speaking experience. If you want to suddenly claim that you with your god might convince Dickie in private then that seems either to claim that your god has had no one to speak to him directly for the last 60 years or that you have a special skill.

Given that I find you extraordinarily naive since you have been here, what is it you think you might have?

Faith

[BashfulAnthony]

Oh dear that is so very FUNNY. He would wipe the floor with you, as the non believers do on this forum! I think you are in total denial about how silly your posts are!

No doubt if my debate with Dawkins was done in front of an audience of dedicated atheists, he would keep scoring trivial brownie points with his followers who would indeed decide that he had wiped the floor with me. 

However if the dabate was done in front of a more neutral audience I would hope I could do a little better.  Indeed I would hope to do better even if there were no audience at all.

I think your judgement of my performance on this board is more than a little biased.

Your performance here is irrelevant as has been pointed out. You appear to have no real  speaking experience. If you want to suddenly claim that you with your god might convince Dickie in private then that seems either to claim that your god has had no one to speak to him directly for the last 60 years or that you have a special skill.

Given that I find you extraordinarily naive since you have been here, what is it you think you might have?

Faith

The word means nothing to atheists.  How can they understand a feeling they have never experienced?

[Shaker]

Not that it applies to me, but a great many of them have.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear that is so very FUNNY. He would wipe the floor with you, as the non believers do on this forum! I think you are in total denial about how silly your posts are!

No doubt if my debate with Dawkins was done in front of an audience of dedicated atheists, he would keep scoring trivial brownie points with his followers who would indeed decide that he had wiped the floor with me. 

However if the dabate was done in front of a more neutral audience I would hope I could do a little better.  Indeed I would hope to do better even if there were no audience at all.

I think your judgement of my performance on this board is more than a little biased.

Your performance here is irrelevant as has been pointed out. You appear to have no real  speaking experience. If you want to suddenly claim that you with your god might convince Dickie in private then that seems either to claim that your god has had no one to speak to him directly for the last 60 years or that you have a special skill.

Given that I find you extraordinarily naive since you have been here, what is it you think you might have?

Faith

Aw! Diddums! Nice to know that you think (a) that Dawkins has never met anyone with faith and (b) that your faith does not even work on me never mind Dick.

I suggest you maybe reread the questions asked and you might, just might, begin to get a hint of why you appear not even to have read the post.

[BashfulAnthony]

Not that it applies to me, but a great many of them have.

Well, they didn't, did they, because they are atheists and always were, and have no concept of what "faith" really is.

[Shaker]

Not that it applies to me, but a great many of them have.

Well, they didn't, did they, because they are atheists and always were, and have no concept of what "faith" really is.

Don't pretend to be an even bigger idiot.

I'm referring to the reams of people who are now atheists but who formerly adhered to a religious faith (Christian; Jewish; Muslim; Sikh; whatever it was) before they saw through it and it deserted them. Case in point: Leonard James.

[Nearly Sane]

Not that it applies to me, but a great many of them have.

Well, they didn't, did they, because they are atheists and always were, and have no concept of what "faith" really is.

so when Rhiannon says she was a believer, you are telling her not only was she a liar but when she says she is a pagan now, she is still a liar because she is an atheist. Hmmm

That's ignoring your use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, just to concentrate on calling people liars

[BashfulAnthony]

Not that it applies to me, but a great many of them have.

Well, they didn't, did they, because they are atheists and always were, and have no concept of what "faith" really is.

Don't pretend to be an even bigger idiot.

I'm referring to the reams of people who are now atheists but who formerly adhered to a religious faith before they saw through it and it deserted them. Case in point: Leonard James.

Oh dear!  Scraping the barrel now.  To be quoting Leonard simply highlights the paucity of your argument.  Such people never really had a faith:  anything they had was no more than posing.  Now he, and others like him, find it satisfying to pose as atheists.   Pathetic, totally pathetic!

[Shaker]

So on the strength of that excretion, what you seem to be saying is that people who had a religious belief but then lost it (for whatever reason) never actually had it in the first place.

Not that I was quoting Len in any case (I was referring to him, not quoting him) but there are a number of people on this forum - I have one in particular in mind but I shan't name names - who would take serious issue with your brand of especially obnoxious and uninformed ignorance.

There's certainly something pathetic at work here, and it's you.

[Nearly Sane]

Not that it applies to me, but a great many of them have.

Well, they didn't, did they, because they are atheists and always were, and have no concept of what "faith" really is.

Don't pretend to be an even bigger idiot.

I'm referring to the reams of people who are now atheists but who formerly adhered to a religious faith before they saw through it and it deserted them. Case in point: Leonard James.

Oh dear!  Scraping the barrel now.  To be quoting Leonard simply highlights the paucity of your argument.  Such people never really had a faith:  anything they had was no more than posing.  Now he, and others like him, find it satisfying to pose as atheists.   Pathetic, totally pathetic!

So that is Rhiannon and Leonard you are now going down the liar route just to justify your position. There was a much loved aunt of mine who gave up belief not long before she died, I take it you want to add her to the people you want to proclaim were liars?

[BashfulAnthony]

So on the strength of that excretion, what you seem to be saying is that people who had a religious belief but then lost it (for whatever reason) never actually had it in the first place.

Not that I was quoting Len in any case (I was referring to him, not quoting him) but there are a number of people on this forum - I have one in particular in mind but I shan't name names - who would take serious issue with your brand of especially obnoxious and uninformed ignorance.

There's certainly something pathetic at work here, and it's you.

It's very easy to tell when you're talking rubbish  -  your lips move.   I think you should do some serious soil-searching:  you might even find one.

[Sassy]

Wouldn't the honest answer be that  NO POINT MISSED.
TRUTH IS: There is no point to answer when it comes to free will and the very fact you tried to ignore the truth by making such a stupid remark proves it.

So to test you and your stupid point... What part of free will does not exist when it comes to belief in God... And if does not exist then how come you do not believe?

You knowingly choose to believe in paganism which has been proved to be made up beliefs without any truth about it...

Please do not come here and tell me I don't understand freewill when it comes to Religion or    Paganism... Because I truly understand that you being a pagan was a choice by using your free will/freewill....

It is the emperors new clothes with you every time... Now anyone who is a pagan is clearly showing free will/ Freewill because paganism NEVER SOUGHT YOU OUT, DID IT?

There's a challenge for you horsethorn - trying answering that! (But not for the reasons Sassy imagines though of course).

I considered it.

But then I realised that she hadn't got my point about not getting the point...

I might have a go after lunch

ht

You doing Lunch for us... how kind of you...

[torridon]

Your performance here is irrelevant as has been pointed out. You appear to have no real  speaking experience. If you want to suddenly claim that you with your god might convince Dickie in private then that seems either to claim that your god has had no one to speak to him directly for the last 60 years or that you have a special skill.

Given that I find you extraordinarily naive since you have been here, what is it you think you might have?

Faith

Ye, that characterises your postings on this forum.  Faith does not win debates.  To do well, to convince, to win someone over, you need reason, evidence, and a willingness to engage.  You have your own particular portfolio of beliefs; it is for you to justify those beliefs with reasoned arguments and compelling evidence.  All we seem to get from you is assertion and evasion.

[torridon]

Oh dear!  Scraping the barrel now.  To be quoting Leonard simply highlights the paucity of your argument.  Such people never really had a faith:  anything they had was no more than posing.  Now he, and others like him, find it satisfying to pose as atheists.   Pathetic, totally pathetic!

People do change, you know. In fact people change all the time, none of us remains the same. Atheists sometimes become believers, catholics become muslims, labour voters become tory voters, shy people become outgoing, bankers become decent people.....

[SusanDoris]

ridiculing beliefs are fine, ridiculing individuals is not fine.

If some comedian wants to stand up and ridicule beliefs of any sort, that's fine IMO , provided he doesn't pick one person out of the audience to ridicule.

Perhaps it's just me, but because RD normally deals with individuals, I think he should be careful not to put them down in the way he does.

The questions mean a lot to the people asking them and RD's attitude towards them as people could be better.

Mock religion is ok, mocking people isn't.

He needs to refute without making someone look stupid.

Trust me, there is a difference.

In the video clip I put up, I felt he ridiculed her individually, even speculated about where she had got her belief.

It sort of made it personal rather than impersonal.

One of the reasons that religious beliefs have held sway for so very long, apart from the fact that this is not so much the case now because of modern methods of communication, is that they had the power to suppress atheist views, to make a challenge to their faith beliefs appear to be the height of bad manners, etc. The light of reality is slowly but surelybreaking through the fog of unsubstantiated faiths and unevidenced beliefs. I wish it would happen a bit quicker!

[Alan Burns]

One of the reasons that religious beliefs have held sway for so very long, apart from the fact that this is not so much the case now because of modern methods of communication, is that they had the power to suppress atheist views, to make a challenge to their faith beliefs appear to be the height of bad manners, etc. The light of reality is slowly but surelybreaking through the fog of unsubstantiated faiths and unevidenced beliefs. I wish it would happen a bit quicker!

Sorry to disillusion you, but the worldwide number of Christians is still on the increase, as it has been for the last two thousand years.

[savillerow]

Msg 1593 SD  Thats the way i see it, its the old pack of cards caving in.

[Sassy]

Your performance here is irrelevant as has been pointed out. You appear to have no real  speaking experience. If you want to suddenly claim that you with your god might convince Dickie in private then that seems either to claim that your god has had no one to speak to him directly for the last 60 years or that you have a special skill.

Given that I find you extraordinarily naive since you have been here, what is it you think you might have?

Faith

Ye, that characterises your postings on this forum.  Faith does not win debates.  To do well, to convince, to win someone over, you need reason, evidence, and a willingness to engage.  You have your own particular portfolio of beliefs; it is for you to justify those beliefs with reasoned arguments and compelling evidence.  All we seem to get from you is assertion and evasion.

The real problem is Torridon, the lack of knowledge and ability on your part and many like you.
Faith does not need to win debates it is the truth which wins the debate.
The bible is very clear and the Jews have shown evidence that by obeying Gods Laws give to them through Moses they prosper in everything they do and in every Country.
So does every Country and people prosper where they are.
A sure sign and sure evidence that God keeps his word in the bible.
Why don't you know what the bible says and why can't you recognise the evidence?

Christ said: " If you :-

King James Bible
If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

King James Bible
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


The Words of God in the OT and the Words of God through Christ show that evidence is available for the person who sincerely wants it, to follow God and obey him.

Why do you ask for evidence?  It isn't to believe and it isn't to do as Christ did.
It is all about mocking... If you don't want to walk the walk or do the talk then stop complaining about evidence... Because the bible is about truth and to have that truth you need to have a right heart for keeping and knowing why it is truth.

[Sassy]

ridiculing beliefs are fine, ridiculing individuals is not fine.

If some comedian wants to stand up and ridicule beliefs of any sort, that's fine IMO , provided he doesn't pick one person out of the audience to ridicule.

Perhaps it's just me, but because RD normally deals with individuals, I think he should be careful not to put them down in the way he does.

The questions mean a lot to the people asking them and RD's attitude towards them as people could be better.

Mock religion is ok, mocking people isn't.

He needs to refute without making someone look stupid.

Trust me, there is a difference.

In the video clip I put up, I felt he ridiculed her individually, even speculated about where she had got her belief.

It sort of made it personal rather than impersonal.

One of the reasons that religious beliefs have held sway for so very long, apart from the fact that this is not so much the case now because of modern methods of communication, is that they had the power to suppress atheist views, to make a challenge to their faith beliefs appear to be the height of bad manners, etc. The light of reality is slowly but surelybreaking through the fog of unsubstantiated faiths and unevidenced beliefs. I wish it would happen a bit quicker!

Wishful thinking Susan Doris...

.In the summer of 64, Rome suffered a terrible fire that burned for six days and seven nights consuming almost three quarters of the city. The people accused the Emperor Nero for the devastation claiming he set the fire for his own amusement. In order to deflect these accusations and placate the people, Nero laid blame for the fire on the Christians. The emperor ordered the arrest of a few members of the sect who, under torture, accused others until the entire Christian populace was implicated and became fair game for retribution. As many of the religious sect that could be found were rounded up and put to death in the most horrific manner for the amusement of the citizens of Rome. The ghastly way in which the victims were put to death aroused sympathy among many Romans, although most felt their execution justified.

It is the truth which keeps the Christian Faith going and the persecution by atheists who tortured and killed them.

Atheists DO NOT CHALLENGE Faiths they try to destroy them by the most evil methods going...
Truth is the Atheist has NOTHING to challenge God or Christianity.
Even the Jews have be turning to Christ as Messiah and they had the Romans put Christ to death.

The three reasons that the Christian faith survive are   God, Gods Words and the fact Gods words are Truth.
You choose not to believe you do not care if the words of God in the OT are true. So atheists have nothing to fight Christianity or Gods words with. Because Christianity, Judaism and Christ are about Truth and that Truth is Gods.
His words will never fail and will always do what it is sent to do.
Now that is something you cannot argue against and is not debatable...