Does antitheism exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEc_jeGBVxs

Dynamo walking on the Thames.

In which the house liar shoots himself in both feet:

1. A witness without a working knowledge of conjuring techniques would have reported seeing Dynamo walking on water

2. Dynamo wasn’t walking on water (there was a platform just under the surface)

3. The witness account was therefore wrong, whether or not he reported accurately what he thought he saw

4. In ancient times authors who wrote down the accounts generations later and who weren’t there had no means of verifying the original claims

5. If nonetheless someone wants to give credence to narratives that are outside of all knowledge about how the universe works, then he has no grounds to deny any such narratives about any supposed miracle taken from any religious faith       

Coming next: Vlad doctoring what I just wrote to claim I said something else entirely, and then refusing to apologise for it when he’s found out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which the house liar shoots himself in both feet:

1. A witness without a working knowledge of conjuring techniques would have reported seeing Dynamo walking on water

2. Dynamo wasn’t walking on water (there was a platform just under the surface)

3. The witness account was therefore wrong, whether or not he reported accurately what he thought he saw

4. In ancient times authors who wrote down the accounts generations later and who weren’t there had no means of verifying the original claims

5. If nonetheless someone wants to give credence to narratives that are outside of all knowledge about how the universe works, then he has no grounds to deny any such narratives about any supposed miracle taken from any religious faith       

Coming next: Vlad doctoring what I just wrote to claim I said something else entirely, and then refusing to apologise for it when he’s found out.

You really believe strongly in your own turdpolishing abilities don't you.

Here is what Jeremy claimed:

If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it.

He thought he made the story up which would have made me going on about an illusionist doing it look stupid had it not been for him being wrong.

That you are defending it just adds to my suspicion that you are trying to build up a portfolio showcasing your turdpolishing abilities.

I'm afraid it would take handwaving and illusionism of a Dynamo to magic Jeremy's error away.

[bluehillside Retd.]

You really believe strongly in your own turdpolishing abilities don't you.

For anyone wondering what a liar spitting his dummy sounds like, wonder no more.

Here is what Jeremy claimed:
Quote from: jeremyp on Today at 10:45:43 AM

If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it.
He thought he made the story up which would have made me going on about an illusionist doing it look stupid had it not been for him being wrong.

That you are defending it just adds to my suspicion that you are trying to build up a portfolio showcasing your turdpolishing abilities.

I'm afraid it would take handwaving and illusionism of a Dynamo to magic Jeremy's error away.

And for anyone wondering what a liar missing the point entirely looks like, wonder no more either. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For anyone wondering what a liar spitting his dummy sounds like, wonder no more.

And for anyone wondering what a liar missing the point entirely looks like, wonder no more either.

In the quote you included some of what Jeremy wrote. Was this to pass his error of as mine?

I think you are going to extraordinary lengths here. It looks odd.

[jeremyp]

The expectation that all Christians should be toeing the Pauline line comes from a caricature view I would say or a conflation of early Christianity and medieval Catholicism.

You're the one who claims that there was some sort of community that validates what happened to Jesus. It's not my fault that Paul's letters give the lie to that idea. Early Christians couldn't even agree as to whether there was resurrection according to Paul. You'd have thought that all the strong eye witness evidence that you claim existed at the time (but somehow doesn't now) would have settled the debate.

It seems possible that you saw this somewhere and your mind just didn’t accept that you had seen it.

Have you got any evidence other than my post above that I later claimed was made up? Nope.

[jeremyp]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEc_jeGBVxs

Dynamo walking on the Thames.

Not down the middle.

Not in 1999 or 2000.

Not between Tower Bridge and London Bridge.

Not actually walking on water.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not down the middle.

Not in 1999 or 2000.

Not between Tower Bridge and London Bridge.

Not actually walking on water.

Quote from: jeremyp on Today at 10:45:43 AM

If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up.

You didn't and there is a video to prove it....and yes it was an illusionist.

Were you honestly completely ignorant of this stunt?

[bluehillside Retd.]

In the quote you included some of what Jeremy wrote. Was this to pass his error of as mine?

I think you are going to extraordinary lengths here. It looks odd.

Presumably your thinking here is that, having been caught out in a big lie, your best strategy to worm your way out of it is to try an even bigger one.

Doesn’t work. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're the one who claims that there was some sort of community that validates what happened to Jesus. It's not my fault that Paul's letters give the lie to that idea.

They don't, there was an orthodox community that agreed with Paul. Many other sects interpreted the resurrection as a different event. Gnostics among others viewed Jesus as some kind of Holy Hologram......not of this earth at all and reinterpret the miracles to follow suit. What we find amongst all christian believers is that Jesus was special. Of course some doubted it and maybe some even abandoned the faith but not, I would imagine , enough for your liking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably your thinking here is that, having been caught out in a big lie, your best strategy to worm your way out of it is to try an even bigger one.

Doesn’t work.

Saying that you made up a story about a man walking on the Thames and being reminded that an illusionist did it only to defend it by saying it wasn't real(we know that he was an illusionist) and it wasn't actually in the middle is regrettable. That you rush in to defend his faux pas is rather pitiful.

[bluehillside Retd.]

The Whopping Liar,

Saying that you made up a story about a man walking on the Thames and being reminded that an illusionist did it only to defend it by saying it wasn't real(we know that he was an illusionist) and it wasn't actually in the middle is regrettable. That you rush in to defend his faux pas is rather pitiful.

Here's a thought: why don't you pick one day a year - say tomorrow - when you commit not to pollute this mb with your unremitting lying? You could of course return to it as your standard MO for the remaining 364 days but it'd be a breath of fresh air for the rest of us if you were to try it at least.

Deal?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Whopping Liar,

Here's a thought: why don't you pick one day a year - say tomorrow - when you commit not to pollute this mb with your unremitting lying? You could of course return to it as your standard MO for the remaining 364 days but it'd be a breath of fresh air for the rest of us if you were to try it at least.

Deal?

Since part of your MO is IMO, projection, You are by now, I should imagine, questioning your own exploitation of this board ''could I not put my brilliance forward in a harsher arena?'' i would be asking if I were you .let me therefore give some words of encouragement Go.....be gone.....out......away with you....get some kind of oversight.

[bluehillside Retd.]

The Whopping Liar,

Since part of your MO is IMO, projection, You are by now, I should imagine, questioning your own exploitation of this board ''could I not put my brilliance forward in a harsher arena?'' i would be asking if I were you .let me therefore give some words of encouragement Go.....be gone.....out......away with you....get some kind of oversight.

So that'd be a "no" then - you intend continuing with your lying unabated. You remind me of someone who always cheats at the line calls in tennis, and then feels all smug about his "win". What you get from lying about what's said to you is beyond me, especially as you're so easily and regularly found out when you do it. Oh well - each to his own I guess.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Whopping Liar,

So that'd be a "no" then - you intend continuing with your lying unabated. You remind me of someone who always cheats at the line calls in tennis, and then feels all smug about his "win". What you get from lying about what's said to you is beyond me, especially as you're so easily and regularly found out when you do it. Oh well - each to his own I guess.   

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnnnnnnnnnn.

[bluehillside Retd.]

The Whopping Liar,

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnnnnnnnnnn.

So not even an attempt to deny your lying them. Probably jut as well, what with it being undeniable.

Still, if you get something from it by all means keep on going. Me, I'd rather talk to someone who isn't pathologically mendacious. That's the difference between us I guess. 
       

[jeremyp]

Quote from: jeremyp on Today at 10:45:43 AM

You didn't and there is a video to prove it....and yes it was an illusionist.

Were you honestly completely ignorant of this stunt?

You are being totally dishonest. This was what I first said about the incident:

I can remember exactly what I was doing on the night of 31st December 1999/Jan 1st 2000.

As it happens, I saw a man walk in his bare feet down the middle of the River Thames between London Bridge and Tower Bridge.

Your video is clearly not that event. The man:

- did not walk down the centre of the Thames

- did not walk between London Bridge and Tower Bridge

- Did not do it on the night of 31st December 1999.

- used trickery rather than actually walking on water

If it is your intent to show that instead of making up the event, I was actually unconsciously elaborating another superficially similar but wholly mundane piece of human conjuring, I find that an interesting hypothesis. What other miraculous story might be a misremembering of a superficially similar but wholly mundane event?

You'd better go to hospital. That bullet wound in your foot looks bad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are being totally dishonest. This was what I first said about the incident:

Your video is clearly not that event. The man:

- did not walk down the centre of the Thames

- did not walk between London Bridge and Tower Bridge

- Did not do it on the night of 31st December 1999.

- used trickery rather than actually walking on water

If it is your intent to show that instead of making up the event, I was actually unconsciously elaborating another superficially similar but wholly mundane piece of human conjuring, I find that an interesting hypothesis. What other miraculous story might be a misremembering of a superficially similar but wholly mundane event?

You'd better go to hospital. That bullet wound in your foot looks bad.

The video is clearly a man walking on the Thames.Man Thames Thames Man.......as that other great illusionist Tommy Cooper would have put it.

[jeremyp]

They don't, there was an orthodox community that agreed with Paul. Many other sects interpreted the resurrection as a different event.

Yes. That's the point. There were many communities of Christians that did not agree with Paul about the resurrection and his letters show that he was constantly trying to "correct" them.

You can't use the existence of the early church as evidence to validate you view on what happened after Jesus was crucified because they didn't agree even amongst themselves.

[jeremyp]

The video is clearly a man walking on the Thames.Man Thames Thames Man.......as that other great illusionist Tommy Cooper would have put it.

Are you now claiming the video is of an actual miracle?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you now claiming the video is of an actual miracle?

Of course I'm not. I have been mentioning that it was performed by an illusionist from the off. The clue being the use of the word"Illusionist"

[jeremyp]

Of course I'm not.

So you are claiming that the video is of a conjuring trick and you are claiming that I saw it but don't remember seeing it and then unconsciously used it as a model for my example.

Do you not see how you have just torpedoed your own arguments?

[Outrider]

Your not seeing it are you? The reasons people don't entertain Bigfoot and Nessie is because they are described as having physical features and live in specific areas but science hasn't found them but has found Shannon Airport and the odd chipmunk which are smaller than bigfoot.

Quite apart from the fact that people DO entertain the idea of Bigfoot and Nessie and gods, because they don't operate from a requirement of needing evidence, or because they MISATTRIBUTE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.

People being conned is hardly a new development - let's charge people to study something... and if we pick something that's not there they can never point out that we taught them wrong.  It's a license to print money...

Now that we've taken down Leprechauns in the heirarchy of Guesses suggested by Law....

Except that you haven't. In the absence of any physical evidence you've attributed physicality to leprechauns based on old stories which depict them physically manifesting.  At the same time, in the absence of any physical evidence, you've attribute an entirely non-physical existence to a god, despite old stories which depict it physically manifesting...

and Invisible Pink Unicorns have been dismissed as a logical impossibility

Like an omnipotent, omniscient god which punishes and rewards people for their alleged deployment of the logically impossible notion of 'free will'?

It is high time we dealt with the flying spaghetti monster (epistemically Italian).

Whether pasta is epistemically Italian or not is a matter of some debate; pasta, and indeed spaghetti, are just the Italian words for a timeless foodstuff which has been found to exist much earlier in places such as China, and in pre-Italian (and, indeed, pre-Roman) Europe.  Come on, what do they teach in Theology classes these days, his is basic, foundational stuff...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are claiming that the video is of a conjuring trick and you are claiming that I saw it but don't remember seeing it and then unconsciously used it as a model for my example.

Do you not see how you have just torpedoed your own arguments?

I asked you if you really were unaware of this stunt since it seems you were given your confidence in having made it up.
I have yet to receive a reply.
As I said miracles ,on their own are not enough.
I have torpedoed nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite apart from the fact that people DO entertain the idea of Bigfoot and Nessie and gods, because they don't operate from a requirement of needing evidence, or because they MISATTRIBUTE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

I have been over why I am not a leprechaunist nor an invisible pink unicorn and as far as I know nobody else has explained why they reject either. I don't believe I have pulled the words Burden of proof into my aleprechaun and aunicornism. So let's try again, why are you skeptical of Bigfoot or Nessie and not of undemonstrable greater unconscious 'realities' that go on forever and ever?

People being conned is hardly a new development - let's charge people to study something... and if we pick something that's not there they can never point out that we taught them wrong.  It's a license to print money...

A lot of positive assertions there. Since you are so keen on people acting on a Burden of proof, fill your boots.

Except that you haven't. In the absence of any physical evidence you've attributed physicality to leprechauns based on old stories which depict them physically manifesting.

Again, why are you aleprechaunist?

  At the same time, in the absence of any physical evidence, you've attribute an entirely non-physical existence to a god, despite old stories which depict it physically manifesting

... God could still be God without a burning bush. Add consciousness to your greater reality and you have the physical manifestation par excellence i.e. the whole universe. My own theology is although God can act through the physical He isn't physical...in other words God can be in the universe but not be the universe

Like an omnipotent, omniscient god which punishes and rewards people for their alleged deployment of the logically impossible notion of 'free will'?

Since physical nature carries no notion of alienation from God and it's consequences it is hard to see how physical determinism comes into it. what physically determines a decision for or against God?

Whether pasta is epistemically Italian or not is a matter of some debate; pasta, and indeed spaghetti, are just the Italian words for a timeless foodstuff.

I can just about tolerate the idea of a timeless greater reality but timeless Pasta?....
You've crossed a line there, pal.

[Outrider]

I have been over why I am not a leprechaunist nor an invisible pink unicorn and as far as I know nobody else has explained why they reject either.

I am equally sceptical of both; I don't posit an infinite reality and an accepted explanation for what is, I posit it as a viable alternative to a self-creating consciousness to point out the flaw in attempted 'god of the gaps' arguments like 'why something not nothing'.

A lot of positive assertions there.

No, no positive assertions there.  My answer to 'where did everything come from' is 'I don't know, we don't have enough information to make an informed opinion yet'.

Since you are so keen on people acting on a Burden of proof, fill your boots. Again, why are you aleprechaunist?...

For all the same reasons that I don't believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns or self-creating Zombie Jews.

God could still be God without a burning bush.

Arguably, no.  God could still be a god, but it wouldn't be 'God' as depicted in the Judao-Christian tradition.

Add consciousness to your greater reality and you have the physical manifestation par excellence i.e. the whole universe.

What? Where the hell did 'consciousness' jump into this?  Add it to what?

My own theology is although God can act through the physical He isn't physical...in other words God can be in the universe but not be the universe.

Well that makes absolute no sense whatsoever.  If it's there, it's there; and, as something that's there it can be measured and tested and quantified.  If it's not there and can't be measured or detected, then in what way is it real?  Either it is or it isn't, but you can't have both.

Since physical nature carries no notion of alienation from God and it's consequences it is hard to see how physical determinism comes into it.

Because physical nature comes into the notion of actually existing.

what physically determines a decision for or against God?I can just about tolerate the idea of a timeless greater reality but timeless Pasta?....

Timeless pasta is perfectly al dente no matter how long it's boiled for; divine pasta is a pasta greater than any other pasta that can be conceived, and what pasta is greater than perfectly al dente pasta?

O.