The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Can someone give me the condensed version?

ATX says he's an atheist and it's fact based unlike people who believe in God. But it's only his opinion so he doesn't need to defend it. Though he said he would anyway but hasn't.

Irn-Bru poked him with a stick, but he stayed rolled in a ball.

Deadskins is a Christian who's disinclined to worry about dogma.

Kaz believes in God but can't decide if he's a Christian who doesn't believe in dogma or if he's not a Christian but he believes in a God with Christian values.

The Crusades were bad.

I think I covered it.

You forgot the outbreak of *crickets*

1niksder wrote:You forgot the outbreak of *crickets*

I paraphrased:

kaz wrote:Irn-Bru poked him with a stick, but he stayed rolled in a ball

Came across this today, and it seemed apropos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... d74#t=343s

ATX_Skins wrote:I am actually tired of being badgered with the same question over and over and over.

Then how about answering the original question which started the whole discussion? How do you explain everything that is?

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:I am actually tired of being badgered with the same question over and over and over.

Then how about answering the original question which started the whole discussion? How do you explain everything that is?

As an Atheist I don't have to know, or explain. You do. Watch this video please.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3XzGjs4-U

I hope you at least appreciate the irony of what happened here. Some guy enters a thread on the attack, full of confidence that his opponents will just crumple before him. He says things like "I can easily show that all religions are completely nuts," or that reality clearly shows there is no God. He even goes out of his way to say he's got some spare time and would like to hear whatever defense theists can make for religion or God.

He does all that . . . only to find himself holed up in his inner sanctuary a few posts later, with his fingers in his ears. Forget about theists needing to defend themselves; the moment a serious discussion started, it was all "Look, I don't have to give reasons for anything" and "it might work for you; I'm just saying it doesn't for me," and "you're the one who has to explain!"

Those aren't the words of a man on the attack. That's a guy who's retreated to that place where no one can force him to say or do anything further.

And really, that's fine. As I said before, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

But please, please tell me you at least appreciate the irony. That's at least something we can agree on.

I mean, c'mon. It's pretty funny, you have to admit.

Irn-Bru wrote:I hope you at least appreciate the irony of what happened here. Some guy enters a thread on the attack, full of confidence that his opponents will just crumple before him. He says things like "I can easily show that all religions are completely nuts," or that reality clearly shows there is no God. He even goes out of his way to say he's got some spare time and would like to hear whatever defense theists can make for religion or God.

He does all that . . . only to find himself holed up in his inner sanctuary a few posts later, with his fingers in his ears. Forget about theists needing to defend themselves; the moment a serious discussion started, it was all "Look, I don't have to give reasons for anything" and "it might work for you; I'm just saying it doesn't for me," and "you're the one who has to explain!"

Those aren't the words of a man on the attack. That's a guy who's retreated to that place where no one can force him to say or do anything further.

And really, that's fine. As I said before, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

But please, please tell me you at least appreciate the irony. That's at least something we can agree on.

I mean, c'mon. It's pretty funny, you have to admit.

I can't get over how much your avatar looks like Bill O'Reilly.

You don't like Sam Huff?

Sure, he's a little . . . well . . . past his commentating prime now. But one hell of a player. Old school. You'd have liked him, I think.

Honestly, I'm 30, I know he was a great player for us but I've never seen him play. Maybe on YouTube. My first memory of a Redskin was Dexter Manley who signed an autograph for me outside of worldgate that read: "Don't do drugs" I think I still have it somewhere.

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:I am actually tired of being badgered with the same question over and over and over.

Then how about answering the original question which started the whole discussion? How do you explain everything that is?

As an Atheist I don't have to know, or explain. You do. Watch this video please.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3XzGjs4-U

Ok, I watched the video, and I think he is as intellectually lazy as you are. Saying he doesn't have to answer the question is a cop out. Had he asked " then who created God?" or simply stated that the universe has always been, that would have at least been a reasonable answer. But to simply deny God's existence without some kind of other explanation is just asinine. I didn't care for the guy asking the questions either, BTW, because he couldn't give a reasonable response to why Hitchens should come up with something better than "nuh uh, you are!"

why do people that 'believe' have to explain the answer to JSPB's question? the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation.

Just answer the 'original' question - stop avoiding the issue here

ATX_Skins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I hope you at least appreciate the irony of what happened here. Some guy enters a thread on the attack, full of confidence that his opponents will just crumple before him. He says things like "I can easily show that all religions are completely nuts," or that reality clearly shows there is no God. He even goes out of his way to say he's got some spare time and would like to hear whatever defense theists can make for religion or God.

He does all that . . . only to find himself holed up in his inner sanctuary a few posts later, with his fingers in his ears. Forget about theists needing to defend themselves; the moment a serious discussion started, it was all "Look, I don't have to give reasons for anything" and "it might work for you; I'm just saying it doesn't for me," and "you're the one who has to explain!"

Those aren't the words of a man on the attack. That's a guy who's retreated to that place where no one can force him to say or do anything further.

And really, that's fine. As I said before, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

But please, please tell me you at least appreciate the irony. That's at least something we can agree on.

I mean, c'mon. It's pretty funny, you have to admit.

I can't get over how much your avatar looks like Bill O'Reilly.

Yeah, what were we talking about again?

SkinsJock wrote:why do people that 'believe' have to explain the answer to JSPB's question? the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation.

Just answer the 'original' question - stop avoiding the issue here

Well this was pointless, did you watch the video?

Yes I did. My response is above.

Deadskins wrote:Yes I did. My response is above.

Not you, look who I quoted.

However the answer to your question is: I have no clue anymore. I am also drinking heavily and there are hot girls here about to strip down naked depending on the outcome of this Rangers game. I'm just a little busy at the moment

ATX_Skins wrote:I am also drinking heavily and there are hot girls here about to strip down naked depending on the outcome of this Rangers game. I'm just a little busy at the moment

I'm sure they're turned on by you being on the computer.

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:I am also drinking heavily and there are hot girls here about to strip down naked depending on the outcome of this Rangers game. I'm just a little busy at the moment

I'm sure they're turned on by you being on the computer.

Considering the computer controls the music, and drunks chicks like music, yes. Rangers just hit a double....

SkinsJock wrote:why do people that 'believe' have to explain the answer to JSPB's question? the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation.

Just answer the 'original' question - stop avoiding the issue here

That's an entirely tautological response.

cvillehog wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:why do people that 'believe' have to explain the answer to JSPB's question? the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation.

Just answer the 'original' question - stop avoiding the issue here

That's an entirely tautological response.

Not really. He's saying that by invoking God as the creator, theists have already answered the question.

Deadskins wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:why do people that 'believe' have to explain the answer to JSPB's question? the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation.

Just answer the 'original' question - stop avoiding the issue here

That's an entirely tautological response.

Not really. He's saying that by invoking God as the creator, theists have already answered the question.

That's the definition of tautology: it's true because it's true.

cvillehog wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:why do people that 'believe' have to explain the answer to JSPB's question? the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation.

Just answer the 'original' question - stop avoiding the issue here

That's an entirely tautological response.

Not really. He's saying that by invoking God as the creator, theists have already answered the question.

That's the definition of tautology: it's true because it's true.

Actually that's not the definition, the definition is it's true in every case.

ATX_Skins wrote:I am actually tired of being badgered with the same question over and over and over.

You stuck your nose in a conversation where someone just said they used God as their personal motivation to proselytize your atheism. Continued to argue it in that thread. When Deadskins started a thread to discuss it you welcomed all challengers. You insulted believers by saying your knowledge there is no God is "fact" based and ours isn't. Then you refused to answer any question no matter how many times or ways they were presented to you.

And now you're whining about it?

ATX_Skins wrote:As an Atheist I don't have to know, or explain

Actually you do. Ignoring you started the whole thing, you are making a positive assertion there is no God. An agnostic wouldn't have to know or explain anything. And again, you made the what traveled through unsubstantiated and went deeply into lame that your views are "fact" based and ours aren't. So far your facts consist of you looked at clouds and realized there is no God. Wow, that would turn Pat Robertson into an atheist...

And at any rate SJ and JSPB weren't giving a tautology. The question is, "What is the cause of everything?" Their answer is, "God." That's what they are talking about when they say "belief" — belief in God as cause.

So when ATX says "You need to explain the cause of everything," that's their answer: God.

Now, they might be wrong, they might be using "God" to fill in for something they don't fully know . . . I can imagine several critiques one might try to level against it. Saying it's "tautological" doesn't really make sense, though: it's just not a tautology.

It could only be a tautology if "God" was defined strictly as something like "the answer to the question of what caused everything," where "answer" is self-referential. That way, any attempt to define God further so as to distinguish him from the cause of the universe (and get more meaning out of the definition) would fail. But clearly they are talking about more than that: some kind of supreme being whose existence is not caused, etc.

Irn-Bru wrote:The question is, "What is the cause of everything?"

Just out of curiosity, what is your answer to that question, IB?