# This could shed some light on a lot of A,A & A topics!



## oldfella1962 (Jul 8, 2022)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

Now I wonder who could have written this article? Could it be.....SATAN?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2022)

It's hard for me to determine which purpose the author was trying harder to achieve: insult all believers since the dawn of mankind or achieve some form of self-patronization through perhaps the most demonstrable example of shallow and shoddy reasoning I have seen in quiet some time.  We have a local guy here with a facebook profile who has enjoyed becoming quite a large atheist tadpole in our little mud puddle. He caused a bit of a stir in this rural community and while I suspect that was primary goal, overall I like the guys sincerity though he would often lose his line of reasoning due to emotion.  I'm pretty sure he could see the flaws that permeate this article.  Regardless of whether it's a hit piece or an article that puts forth an idea, IMHO it fails miserably.  Again, JMHO.


----------



## OwlRNothing (Jul 10, 2022)

" the most demonstrable example of shallow and shoddy reasoning I have seen in quiet some time.  "

 #agreed


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2022)

Maybe I missed something but I dont see him "attacking" anybody.
All I see is him giving his ideas about human pscychology when it comes to things that are unobservable. His examples covered a very wide range and the vast majority of them had exactly zero to do with "God".
Surely you understand that human pscychology is behind belief, non-belief, favorite color, and every other thing we do.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 10, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe I missed something but I dont see him "attacking" anybody.
> All I see is him giving his ideas about human pscychology when it comes to things that are unobservable. His examples covered a very wide range and the vast majority of them had exactly zero to do with "God".
> Surely you understand that human pscychology is behind belief, non-belief, favorite color, and every other thing we do.



Pretty much my take on it! Maybe some people don't want their religious beliefs lumped in with common, typical thinking patterns. Psychology isn't an exact science in many ways, but many ideas have been thoroughly tested & researched over the years.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2022)

> Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives.





> Consider the face on Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, satanic messages in rock music.





> The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns.



Maybe it's just me being overly sensitive, but equating all otherwise normal, intelligent human beings who believe in God with those who see "the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich" just smacks of an ad hominem attack.  Inferring that believers lack a "baloney-detection device" conversely infers that non-believers possess one and are thus more intelligent, rational, reasonable, etc.  Self adulation anyone?    I've already wasted more time to this than it deserves.  Done.  Y'all have a good week and stay safe.  This world is getting more unpredictable by the day.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Pretty much my take on it! Maybe some people don't want their religious beliefs lumped in with common, typical thinking patterns. Psychology isn't an exact science in many ways, but many ideas have been thoroughly tested & researched over the years.
> 
> View attachment 1162711



Infers believers are irrational to the point they can't determine the difference between a unicorn and God, which defies all evidence to the contrary.  I've never met a believer who couldn't make the distinction and I'm 56.  I suspect no one else has either.    Another ad hominem attack.  I often ponder what it is in human nature that compels believers to look down their noses at unbelievers and unbelievers to look down their noses at believers, and I'm left with the notion that the need to feel superior to someone else is an almost universal human trait.  Regardless, you just lost your ability to play the religious hypocrite card.  Pot meet kettle.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 10, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe it's just me being overly sensitive, but equating all otherwise normal, intelligent human beings who believe in God with those who see "the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich" just smacks of an ad hominem attack.  Inferring that believers lack a "baloney-detection device" conversely infers that non-believers possess one and are thus more intelligent, rational, reasonable, etc.  Self adulation anyone?    I've already wasted more time to this than it deserves.  Done.  Y'all have a good week and stay safe.  This world is getting more unpredictable by the day.



I wouldn't say that you are being "overly sensitive" but why _should _religion be exempt from skepticism and criticism? And I don't remember the author saying (I will read it again) that "non-believers" have a_ better _baloney-detection device than anybody else does. He certainly doesn't exempt himself. He does explain that it's human nature to believe in what we can't see, and why this is likely the case. Look again at the meme I posted about the "imaginary friend." Isn't religion (any religion) an adult version of an imaginary friend? IMHO it is, but you obviously have a different opinion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I wouldn't say that you are being "overly sensitive" but why _should _religion be exempt from skepticism and criticism?



I have no problem with criticism of religion.  If it can't stand up to reason it should be jettisoned, but let's be very clear.  That meme photo wasn't a critique of an idea but a personal attack denigrating a group of people.  There's a difference, and it's not a subtle one.  I'm not into slinging mud.  There was a time I was.  Those days are gone.  Take care Brother.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 10, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Infers believers are irrational to the point they can't determine the difference between a unicorn and God, which defies all evidence to the contrary.  I've never met a believer who couldn't make the distinction and I'm 56.  I suspect no one else has either.    Another ad hominem attack.  I often ponder what it is in human nature that compels believers to look down their noses at unbelievers and unbelievers to look down their noses at believers, and I'm left with the notion that the need to feel superior to someone else is an almost universal human trait.  Regardless, you just lost your ability to play the religious hypocrite card.  Pot meet kettle.



I don't think I'm superior to anybody! You don't believe in unicorns and neither do I.
Just add the God of the Bible to the list of things that I don't believe in, and I have very valid reasons for not believing in either. IMHO just like we can't choose who we fall in love with, or which music we like, we can't choose what we believe in if we are being honest with ourselves. So to me, the evidence for God isn't very convincing and the evidence against God is IMHO overwhelming.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 11, 2022)

"This world is getting more unpredictable by the day." - SemperFi Dawg

I agree! Off topic, but the universe is indeed an unpredictable place and has always been. Call me a realist, but there is no divine "plan". Because if there was a divine plan it would mean there is only one divinity/deity, and the world has many religions with followers who feel that their deity controls the world and their role in it. 

Interesting (to me) is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there is only one deity.
God states for example "they (humans) have become like _us_, knowing the difference between good and evil." God doesn't say "me". God says similar things throughout the Bible. God does say "I am _your _God" when talking to his chosen people, or to any one individual Bible character. For believers who think that there is only one true God (their God) the fact is almost all religions think that _their _God is the one true God.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 11, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I have no problem with criticism of religion.  If it can't stand up to reason it should be jettisoned, but let's be very clear.  That meme photo wasn't a critique of an idea but a personal attack denigrating a group of people.  There's a difference, and it's not a subtle one.  I'm not into slinging mud.  There was a time I was.  Those days are gone.  Take care Brother.



My interpretation of the meme is this: any belief in "imaginary friends" is equally silly to somebody else who doesn't share those same beliefs! It's ironic how the mom thinks that her child's belief in something obviously (to the mom and most other adults) imaginary yet the mom herself believes in something imaginary herself. 
It's not a dig at any one group, it's a dig at religion in general. It's not slinging mud IMHO.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> "This world is getting more unpredictable by the day." - SemperFi Dawg
> 
> I agree! Off topic, but the universe is indeed an unpredictable place and has always been. Call me a realist, but there is no divine "plan". Because if there was a divine plan it would mean there is only one divinity/deity, and the world has many religions with followers who feel that their deity controls the world and their role in it.
> 
> ...


That is because the Hebrews worshipped many and multiple Gods throughout their history. At some point stories were written that ONE god out of all the others chose the Hebrews to be "his" people. God is talking to the Hebrews/Jews in the OT. Aka, his people.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 11, 2022)

> If it can't stand up to reason it should be jettisoned,...



Human *reason* refers to *human thought that is based on empirical evidence and logic rather than emotion*.

*Empirical evidence is the evidence of the senses, of direct observation or measurement*.

If God or religion passed any of the above smell tests, there would be no atheist.

Note: If you have seen God, I am not talking to you.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 11, 2022)

bullethead said:


> That is because the Hebrews worshipped many and multiple Gods throughout their history. At some point stories were written that ONE god out of all the others chose the Hebrews to be "his" people. God is talking to the Hebrews/Jews in the OT. Aka, his people.



I just found this out a few months ago myself. I had always thought that there was a "clean break" That whole time period (and region) is pretty interesting to me. 
I always thought that there was a "clean break" between polytheism and monotheism 
one Judaism came along, but things are never that simple.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 11, 2022)

660griz said:


> Human *reason* refers to *human thought that is based on empirical evidence and logic rather than emotion*.
> 
> *Empirical evidence is the evidence of the senses, of direct observation or measurement*.
> 
> ...



Good point on that last sentence! Personal experiences can be very important & meaningful. It's just that myself nor anyone I know personally has ever had an "aha!" moment that turned their life around or miraculously healed them or whatever. Granted I myself and others I know have had experiences that cannot be explained, but that has nothing to do with good or evil.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> My interpretation of the meme is this: any belief in "imaginary friends" is equally silly to somebody else who doesn't share those same beliefs! It's ironic how the mom thinks that her child's belief in something obviously (to the mom and most other adults) imaginary yet the mom herself believes in something imaginary herself.
> It's not a dig at any one group, it's a dig at religion in general. It's not slinging mud IMHO.



If your rationale can stand on its own two feet then “digs” at others aren’t necessary.  The fact that they are employed by either side is a sure sign that a) one’s position doesn’t stand up to critique, b) one doesn’t understand their own position well enough to make a reasoned defense of it, or c) both.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 11, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Interesting (to me) is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there is only one deity.
> God states for example "they (humans) have become like _us_, knowing the difference between good and evil." God doesn't say "me". God says similar things throughout the Bible. God does say "I am _your _God" when talking to his chosen people, or to any one individual Bible character. For believers who think that there is only one true God (their God) the fact is almost all religions think that _their _God is the one true God.


The first of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." That also implies that there is more than one.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> The first of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." That also implies that there is more than one.


Your boat can become a god if you put it before God.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 11, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Your boat can become a god if you put it before God.


Go to church or take your wife to the ER? Are you putting family before God?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I don't think I'm superior to anybody! You don't believe in unicorns and neither do I.
> Just add the God of the Bible to the list of things that I don't believe in, and I have very valid reasons for not believing in either. IMHO just like we can't choose who we fall in love with, or which music we like, we can't choose what we believe in if we are being honest with ourselves. So to me, the evidence for God isn't very convincing and the evidence against God is IMHO overwhelming.


All of that is fine...................... but



SemperFiDawg said:


> If your rationale can stand on its own two feet then “digs” at others aren’t necessary


BINGO


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2022)

660griz said:


> Go to church or take your wife to the ER? Are you putting family before God?


That is a far reach but no, taking your wife to ER is not putting family before God.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2022)

660griz said:


> Go to church or take your wife to the ER? Are you putting family before God?


It is really no different than putting things before your family.

Which one takes away from your family?

1. Taking yourself to ER due to an emergency, or
2. Taking your boat out every weekend and never having a date night with your wife?

I know for myself that after 27 years , two kids and 3 grandkids ole spot still needs to clean up a few times per month and take mama out.

I still do not hunt every weekend so that I do not put that before my family. My wife used to hunt. But since she stopped, I come out of the woods long enough to go watch a movie with her, take short road trips and eat at funny named restaurants she found on the WWW.

There is a balance there for everything - for the Christian family, spending time together at church is also family time. We do not vacation every weekend, but we do vacation regularly. My wife and I will hit the road Saturday and come home Wednesday night. I do not have a problem missing church / work because you need a break from everything but I always struggle not seeing my grandkids for a few days outside of FaceTime.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 11, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> It is really no different than putting things before your family.


Really? I thought God had to come first. Good to know.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2022)

I`m learning more everyday to not argue with closed minded people, they have no interest other than what they think - you just gotta let them play in the street sometimes.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 11, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Your boat can become a god if you put it before God.


That's not what it was talking about, and you know that as well as I do. That commandment was specifically about worshipping other deities, not material possessions. Don't close your mind.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> That's not what it was talking about, and you know that as well as I do. That commandment was specifically about worshipping other deities, not material possessions. Don't close your mind.


Well..........


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2022)

660griz said:


> Human *reason* refers to *human thought that is based on empirical *evidence



An (almost) universally understood falsehood (though a fave among uninformed A/As).  Philosophy 101.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 11, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> An (almost) universally understood falsehood (though a fave among uninformed A/As).  Philosophy 101.


Not real sure what you are responding to. Are you saying empirical is a universally understood. Empirical was in red font so...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 12, 2022)

660griz said:


> Not real sure what you are responding to. Are you saying empirical is a universally understood. Empirical was in red font so...





660griz said:


> Not real sure what you are responding to. Are you saying empirical is a universally understood. Empirical was in red font so...





> Human reason refers to human thought that is based on empirical evidence



Much of human reasoning is not based on "empirical" evidence.  Some say even most of it is not based on "empirical" evidence.  "Empirical" evidence can certainly be used to reason but it's not a necessary ingredient for reasoning.  Nor does the presence of empirical evidence guarantee solid reasoning.  A lot of Atheist use the argument that since God is not empirically provable, he doesn't or can't be proven to reasonably exist.  It's a patently false argument.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Much of human reasoning is not based on "empirical" evidence.  Some say even most of it is not based on "empirical" evidence.  "Empirical" evidence can certainly be used to reason but it's not a necessary ingredient for reasoning.  Nor does the presence of empirical evidence guarantee solid reasoning.  A lot of Atheist use the argument that since God is not empirically provable, he doesn't or can't be proven to reasonably exist.  It's a patently false argument.


I just have to ask:
Then without empirical evidence what proof is there of a god or gods and what proof shows a specific god, gods or God?
This is the sort of answer I have been waiting on for years. Sincerely.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

Israel said:


> I don't know what other place to occupy than I believe I have heard you often say...it's not unlike mine at all, actually, with only with the slightest of difference in "if" and "because." I've learned they are not as different as I once would have thought...and even _through thinking_ there was such a huge difference between them.
> 
> It's even kinda funny...but far more warming to see such a similar place of occupation.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

Israel said:


> _________________ God is God, He surely knows how to reach me.
> 
> 
> (fill in the blank with either "If" or "Because")
> ...


Much easier to decipher. 

But, it does not address what SFD is saying in post #30.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I just have to ask:
> Then without empirical evidence what proof is there of a god or gods and what proof shows a specific god, gods or God?
> This is the sort of answer I have been waiting on for years. Sincerely.



That thought cannot be empirically proven to have existed. None of your thoughts can.  Do you deny their existence?   I say this half in jest, but it’s true none-the-less.  It serves as a good example of the limits of empiricism: empiricism can’t empirically prove it itself exists.

It’s also special pleading.  God doesn’t exist because he’s not empirically provable .  My thought that God doesn’t exist because he’s not empirically provable isn’t empirically provable either but I affirm it exists so it does.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2022)

Israel said:


> _________________ God is God, He surely knows how to reach me.
> 
> 
> (fill in the blank with either "If" or "Because")
> ...



I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that some time between 10:02 am and 1:26 pm some form of medication was taken/administered


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That thought cannot be empirically proven to have existed. None of your thoughts can.  Do you deny their existence?   I say this half in jest, but it’s true none-the-less.  It serves as a good example of the limits of empiricism: empiricism can’t empirically prove it itself exists.


Some thoughts and Imagination can be verified when put into tangible evidence.
Elon Musk thinks of a propulsion system and then builds it. The results verify his idea.

I can think about having dinner with Rita Hayworth, but it doesn't mean it has happened. No matter how many times I think about it, it isn't ever going happen.
At 9 yrs old in my mind I destroyed the Death Star while flying an X Wing fighter. Are you saying that I did and it is verifiable? I can reason my way through those scenarios but neither can ever be true.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Some thoughts and Imagination can be verified when put into tangible evidence.



You're missing the point.  You, me and everyone else have thoughts.  The thoughts themselves exist.  There's not a person on the face of the earth that would deny that.  Thoughts are real.  They exist, yet not one of them can be empirically proven to exist. It's not that empiricism isn't true, or is even a bad thing.  It's a good thing.  It just has it's limits and it's certainly not the arbiter of reality nor reason......except for some people, and only then when it comes to the subject of God.  It's a poorly thought out argument against the existence of God, perhaps one of the poorest.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're missing the point.  You, me and everyone else have thoughts.  The thoughts themselves exist.  There's not a person on the face of the earth that would deny that.  Thoughts are real.  They exist, yet not one of them can be empirically proven to exist. It's not that empiricism isn't true, or is even a bad thing.  It's a good thing.  It just has it's limits and it's certainly not the arbiter of reality nor reason......except for some people, and only then when it comes to the subject of God.  It's a poorly thought out argument against the existence of God, perhaps one of the poorest.


It is a poor argument about the THOUGHTS that a God exists.
I have yet to hear how anything proves the existence of a God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It is a poor argument about the THOUGHTS that a God exists.
> I have yet to hear how anything proves the existence of a God.



Well if empirical evidence is your sole measuring stick, then just know there's as much empirical evidence for God's existence as there is for the existence of your thoughts and ideas.  I get you don't like that answer, but it's the absolute truth and any skeptic with a shred of intellectual honesty with tell you the same thing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well if empirical evidence is your sole measuring stick, then just know there's as much empirical evidence for God's existence as there is for the existence of your thoughts and ideas.  I get you don't like that answer, but it's the absolute truth and any skeptic with a shred of intellectual honesty with tell you the same thing.


Sfd, WHERE is this evidence that you speak of?
You have claimed it a few times now kind of like Kamala keeps on using the same word to somehow make it sound more believable or that by keeping on saying it somehow uses itself to confirm itself....but without providing any examples that actually back up what you are saying.
Is your stance that "thinking" about God makes God real because thoughts are real?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2022)

The hypothesis for the God of Abraham or who's spirit animates the prophets, the saints and Jesus is tested and proved subconsciously foremost by the subconscious' own rules of evidences.  The sensory under order cannot assess a spirit be it ordinary or of greatest order except that the facts be brought to the subconscious for assessment. Spiritual things are discerned spiritually someone said. The subconscious is where spirits meet and greet, to judge the facts... etc...

Maybe. Maybe this is the reason why individuals who want empirical evidence for God are basically digging for earth worms on a solid rock. That's not where the good bait is at all.

Maybe.

How do you learn something or about something? What is the real dealer of deals?

Food for the unconscious perhaps and hopefully interesting to some :


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

Maybe, just maybe the Worm farm signs are false advertising.  And the reviews aren't truthful.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Sfd, WHERE is this evidence that you speak of?



It resides in the same place as your and my thoughts, our consciousness.



> Is your stance that "thinking" about God makes God real because thoughts are real?



*What is a Straw man argument?*
The standard definition of the straw man argument is exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument.

Oh yeah, I'll take the completely untenable position on a completely separate topic for $200.  GIVE ME SOME OF THAT action! 
Give me a break. That's about a half hearted attempt at trolling a straw man as I have ever seen.  At least put a mini-skirt on it if you want me to take a second look.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It resides in the same place as your and my thoughts, our consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> bullethead said:
> Sfd, WHERE is this evidence that you speak of?





> Sfd said:It resides in the same place as your and my thoughts, our consciousness.





> bullethead said: Is your stance that "thinking" about God makes God real because thoughts are real



I could not have been more accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It resides in the same place as your and my thoughts, our consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now I know where your mini-skirt fascination stems from.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Now I know where your mini-skirt fascination stems from.
> View attachment 1163375



On second thought, I'll take the straw man for $200.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 13, 2022)

bullethead said:


> ...WHERE is this evidence that you speak of?...


Is it okay for me to assume, Bullet, that you do not see the historical documentation of Jesus Christ's resurrection as that which qualifies for you as evidence?  Thx.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Is it okay for me to assume, Bullet, that you do not see the historical documentation of Jesus Christ's resurrection as that which qualifies for you as evidence?  Thx.


194 times later,  No, because there is no historical documentation outside of the bible.
Please list Pliney the Younger,Josephus  and all the other usual suspects that have been listed and debunked as forgeries, later editions and people just retelling what they they heard a couple dozen times already and as recently as another ongoing thread within the last few days. Don't forget about the "over 500" too.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Now I know where your mini-skirt fascination stems from.
> View attachment 1163375


On a side note about that ^^^^ dude -


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 13, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Is it okay for me to assume, Bullet, that you do not see the historical documentation of Jesus Christ's resurrection as that which qualifies for you as evidence?  Thx.


My .02 cents  =
I will accept the Bibles documentation of Jesus's resurrection as "evidence". 
But that is merely a starting point. That evidence then has to be tested, its value determined etc etc. For example a crime scene. Darn near everything is collected and qualifies in the beginning as "evidence". However the vast majority or even all of that evidence ends up in the trash can/is rejected as it does not stand up to scrutiny/testing/corroboration etc.
The Bible contains all kinds of stories that can be considered as "evidence". But there is a reason you have to believe it on faith.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Sfd, WHERE is this evidence that you speak of?


There is none. Of course, the major problem is we have a difference of 'opinion' on what constitutes evidence. 
The simple definition of evidence: *a sign which shows that something exists or is true* 

I haven't seen anything that shows the existence of 'ANY' god. 

Christians will say, "Look at the sunrise. Watch a baby being born. My Aunt's, cousin's, daughter's, best friend's brother had a tumor, and it just went away, cause they prayed."


Sam Harris: “Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
It seems there are definitions that everyone accepts unless, they are talking about religion, faith, God. 

I would assume then, based on the new definition of evidence, that all religions believe in the existence of other gods, from the other religions, they just only worship the one. Would that be a fair statement?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 14, 2022)

bullethead said:


> .... because there is no historical documentation outside of the bible ....





WaltL1 said:


> My .02 cents  =
> I will accept the Bibles documentation of Jesus's resurrection as "evidence".
> But that is merely a starting point.....


And in my question to Bullet, I was referring to historical documentation outside The Bible.  
My view is that any / all such documentation should be evaluated with the same 
(i.e., the same degree of, along with only the same professionally accepted methods) 
scrutiny as looking at any historical documentation of any person, place, event or thing-a-ma-bob.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 14, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> And in my question to Bullet, I was referring to historical documentation outside The Bible.
> My view is that any / all such documentation should be evaluated with the same
> (i.e., the same degree of, along with only the same professionally accepted methods)
> scrutiny as looking at any historical documentation of any person, place, event or thing-a-ma-bob.


I think I agree 
The investigative process/methods should be the same regardless of the who/what/where. The same would apply to the conclusions of those processes.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 14, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> ... The same would apply to the _conclusions_*   of those processes.


Yup. 
And with every interest of what I am about to murmur _not_ being I endeavoring to put words in your mouth : ) .... 
I hold to no expectations that 
even if everyone participating in an 'evaluation' of something 
100% agrees on what is and is not valid evidence 
(which, admittedly, would normally be a little weird : ),
that all those very same folks will arrive at the same *_conclusion_.
Which, btw, is one of the reasons I dig this subforum.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> (Quoting you in deference to Bullet's response that my posts do not address your contentions)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel as though you are a delivery man on a Pogo Stick trying to get from Point A to Point B two doors down. In between you are bouncing around to smash ants, find pennies, read discarded scratch off tickets, check out a lost dog sign on the telephone pole, hit the Hop Scotch chalk, stop at a yard sale, follow some friends, get an ice cream, play your daily numbers, and then finally take the route back through the sandy beach where the Pogo just isnt Pogo-ing anymore.
Hours later, ding-dong and I have to sort through the contents of 4 busted containers wondering what the heck is what only to find out it isn't what I ordered.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I feel as though you are a delivery man on a Pogo Stick trying to get from Point A to Point B two doors down. In between you are bouncing around to smash ants, find pennies, read discarded scratch off tickets, check out a lost dog sign on the telephone pole, hit the Hop Scotch chalk, stop at a yard sale, follow some friends, get an ice cream, play your daily numbers, and then finally take the route back through the sandy beach where the Pogo just isnt Pogo-ing anymore.
> Hours later, ding-dong and I have to sort through the contents of 4 busted containers wondering what the heck is what only to find out it isn't what I ordered.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 14, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I feel as though you are a delivery man on a Pogo Stick trying to get from Point A to Point B two doors down. In between you are bouncing around to smash ants, find pennies, read discarded scratch off tickets, check out a lost dog sign on the telephone pole, hit the Hop Scotch chalk, stop at a yard sale, follow some friends, get an ice cream, play your daily numbers, and then finally take the route back through the sandy beach where the Pogo just isnt Pogo-ing anymore.
> Hours later, ding-dong and I have to sort through the contents of 4 busted containers wondering what the heck is what only to find out it isn't what I ordered.



Sounds like a fun time to me!


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> (Quoting you in deference to Bullet's response that my posts do not address your contentions)
> 
> For some would tout mathematics as a purest form of logic or reason...but it is just as easy to show anything else as just as "pure". My universe of math is to me, no less perfect. (I say this facetiously) Where two+two=5. For in my universe, when one employs the "+" sign it means in function that the meeting of any numbers to its right and left includes the supplementing of "1" to them. 3+2=6,  -3 +-5= -7...etc.


_"There are three men on a train. One of them is an economist and one of them is a logician and one of them is a mathematician.
And they have just crossed the border into Scotland (I don't know why they are going to Scotland) and they see a brown cow standing in a field from the window of the train (and the cow is standing parallel to the train).
And the economist says, 'Look, the cows in Scotland are brown.' And the logician says, 'No. There are cows in Scotland of which at least one is brown.' And the mathematician says, 'No. There is at least one cow in Scotland, of which one side appears to be brown.'_​Never argue with a mathematician!





> So it is not that I think Semper is over reaching (or even trying to prove a god) in (again, if I understand him) saying the grounds taken for refutation are no more sturdy for rejection despite their appearance of being so, than any grounds we could try to establish "by them" for any proof.



Like it states in my sig..."What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- C. Hitchens 



> "a" being unable to be assumptively provable".


How could a being be unable to be assumptively provable? Could not one assumptively prove anything? Or, maybe let me know what you mean when you say 'assumptively provable'.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Sounds like a fun time to me!


I'll still call for delivery because when focused it gets delivered directly, hot, fresh, what I ordered and then it is very enjoyable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 14, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I'll still call for delivery because when focused it gets delivered directly, hot, fresh, what I ordered and then it is very enjoyable.


Very enjoyable to you.
The delivery man probably had a much more satisfying time PoGoing around town.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 14, 2022)

660griz said:


> There is none. Of course, the major problem is we have a difference of 'opinion' on what constitutes evidence.
> The simple definition of evidence: *a sign which shows that something exists or is true*
> 
> I haven't seen anything that shows the existence of 'ANY' god.
> ...


Christianity needs to stop arguing what definition best defines “evidence”, reread the story of doubting Thomas and this whole faith thing. Leave it at faith where it’s supposed to be - biblically. 

There are a few good points to argue with concerning the body and biography of Jesus; He was hung as a rebel, they didn’t bury those kind, they were left for the buzzards.

The other, Writers in that day didn’t document the biography of anyone in great detail. If more was documented; with Him treated as a rebel, I doubt the Romans would allow anyone of that status to receive any viable attention.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> No doubt there was a logic at work to have the amphibious landing craft flop a ramp open facing the beach...


If the ramp did not open facing the beach, it would be called a drowning craft.  So, yes, there was some logic involved.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Christianity needs to stop arguing what definition best defines “evidence”,


That, and stop arguing there is evidence, of any definition, for the existence of God. We have the definition of faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.  
Just go with it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> really?
> 
> Or are you assuming that because I said "facing the beach"/opened to the beach I was thinking only in terms that opened in the stern...and toward the stern?


The troops bailed out over the sides when the front was being chewed up by machine gun fire.
Often the few yards difference meant feet of depth difference in the water. Many men drowned tangled in heavy gear.
To leave out the rear, if that was an option, would only mean deeper water.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> But I was not at all referring to nor ever mentioned "to leave out the rear"...see how easy pogoing around is done?


We expounded upon your post with accurate pertinent information that aided in painting a clearer picture of why the front and sides were the only options.
Throughout everyone knows we were still talking about the landing craft. No Pogo-ing.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> really?
> 
> Or are you assuming that because I said "facing the beach"/opened to the beach I was thinking only in terms that opened in the stern...and toward the stern?


No, sorry, facing ANY other direction than the beach would be drown or get real tired...then shot.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> But that would only supply the "time" of that for some reference...when in fact for years, once seeing the celluloid representations of men being chewed up while stacked up feet apart and front to back in rows...I wondered if there were a better way to offload men toward an enemy to their front...without allowing the front to be so openly vulnerable.


Oh yes. We can "Monday morning quarterback" it all we want. I am sure now they are thinking, how about bombing all the machine gun nest first. What a concept. War still has elements of whoever runs out of ammo or people last, wins.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> just because a door or hatch opens to a side...hardly means a ramp cannot be deployed at 90 degrees to the opening. Still facing the enemy...but now from both sides...both delivering fire from positions several yards apart...and requiring targeting by the enemy of positions several yards apart.




Why don`t you submit these ideas to the Military?


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> aww, c'mon, I am way past thinking this could possibly be an original idea...and if anything...I'd expect more laughter than I get here (thankfully) along the lines of..."nebish, you got no idea about what modern warfare is and ain't...it's got nothing to do with offloading thousands of men onto a deadly beach head"




I don`t know, Israel, because you speak in a language only you and maybe two others here understand. To most of us the way you speak in circles is nothing more than gibberish and rather than explain what you are saying in a few words, you`d rather write a book that says nothing.. So maybe you shouldn`t submit that idea.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> I saw a problem, considered it. And if you think this is an "I woulda done things differently" and done better at it...man...you don't pay much attention, do you?
> 
> It really has nothing at all to do with war per se, at all.
> 
> ...


There was a little tongue n cheek in my response. The fact that a convertible shows up on an open beach and there is debate on which way the ramp opens. Well, personally, I just don't think it matters which way the ramp opens. 

If you were trying to make a different point and I missed it well, that is on both of us. Me for not being smart enough to know what the heck you are talking about and you for not communicating to your audience. I know, I know, but the Bible....


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

> No doubt there was a logic at work to have the amphibious landing craft flop a ramp open facing the beach.





> It really has nothing at all to do with war per se, at all.


I thought we were discussing the logic of the landing craft ramp. You do remember starting this subject, right?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2022)

660griz said:


> I thought we were discussing the logic of the landing craft ramp. You do remember starting this subject, right?


We are to guess what he is thinking and therefore is considered Truth in his mind. But if something in a person's mind is True we wouldn't know it until we heard it, felt it, smelled it or saw it then tested it.
Like someone saying thoughts are evidence of truth and then cannot back up what they mean with examples.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 14, 2022)

> I would assume then, based on the new definition of evidence, that all religions believe in the existence of other gods, from the other religions, they just only worship the one. *Would that be a fair statement?*


 Anyone?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 14, 2022)

Dont listen to these party poopers Israel! 
Your participation here makes this a more interesting place in your own unique way.
To borrow a phrase - God forbid if all this place was .....


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Dont listen to these party poopers Israel!
> Your participation here makes this a more interesting place in your own unique way.
> To borrow a phrase - God forbid if all this place was .....


I enjoy talking to Izzy. I appreciate his participation. I wish that I could decipher more to provide more conversation. He had been a wealth of informational tips about the area I have fished a few times.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 14, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I enjoy talking to Izzy. I appreciate his participation. I wish that I could decipher more to provide more conversation. He had been a wealth of informational tips about the area I have fished a few times.


That is the downside of Israel's style. He's got alot going in his noggin of value, I just cant comprehend 98.7% of it 
But that 1.3% that I can grasp is some pretty good stuff.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 14, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Much of human reasoning is not based on "empirical" evidence.  Some say even most of it is not based on "empirical" evidence.  "Empirical" evidence can certainly be used to reason but it's not a necessary ingredient for reasoning.  Nor does the presence of empirical evidence guarantee solid reasoning.  A lot of Atheist use the argument that since God is not empirically provable, he doesn't or can't be proven to reasonably exist.  It's a patently false argument.



True much of the basis for human reason can't be proven empirically by the average person. But unless you were repeatedly taught or told the story of somebody being resurrected the likelihood of you believing such an event is true would be very low. 
In other words, the basic laws of how the world works (not the whole universe, just our world here on Earth) are apparent to nearly every adult human. Any obvious variance from our formed reality is generally viewed with skepticism, as it should be.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 14, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well if empirical evidence is your sole measuring stick, then just know there's as much empirical evidence for God's existence as there is for the existence of your thoughts and ideas.  I get you don't like that answer, but it's the absolute truth and any skeptic with a shred of intellectual honesty with tell you the same thing.



Somebody can write down their thoughts & ideas in real time right in front of us under any conditions and repeat the display as often as requested, so that might not be technically empirically evidence, but it's very valid evidence IMHO. I've never seen any evidence that even comes close to that for any God.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 14, 2022)

"One can be entertained by many things, make money even in such entertainment, or somehow "illogically" too well understand a man searching on the beach for his arm lost, picking it up driven by some desire to restore a wholeness that is as dangerous in search...as it is futile by his own recovery."

THIS REMINDS ME - I was reading something about the Civil War and it said after major chaotic battles they recovered rifles (often with the dead soldiers obviously) that had multiple powder and bullets halfway down the barrel! When the rifle wouldn't fire the soldiers panicked and reloaded the rifle, and it of course misfired again, and the soldiers kept repeating the process until they were killed.  People are subject to do anything when they are severely traumatized such as in combat.

Something else true (but funny) that happened now & then when I was a bomb loader in the Air Force: one of the most common reactions from bystanders on the flightline/runway (who aren't so close to any jets with engines running thus they don't have their Micky Mouse ears on already) when a bomb is accidently dropped is* instinctively* *putting their fingers in their ears!*  If a 500-pound bomb were to explode fifty yards or so away, protecting your hearing should be the least of your worries!


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 14, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I enjoy talking to Izzy. I appreciate his participation. I wish that I could decipher more to provide more conversation. He had been a wealth of informational tips about the area I have fished a few times.





WaltL1 said:


> That is the downside of Israel's style. He's got alot going in his noggin of value, I just cant comprehend 98.7% of it
> But that 1.3% that I can grasp is some pretty good stuff.


Im glad y’all are here……….this whole time I’m thinking I’m intellectually challenged. Not a knock at you at all @Israel but I get loster than a ball in high weeds sometimes. I’ve often thought “this dude has got to be a for real Writer with a wealth of info stored in that head”, who else can think of that much stuff to respond to a question with!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2022)

Israel said:


> just because a door or hatch opens to a side...hardly means a ramp cannot be deployed at 90 degrees to the opening. Still facing the enemy...but now from both sides...both delivering fire from positions several yards apart...and requiring targeting by the enemy of positions several yards apart.



Been on both LCUs and ACU-2s.  Those carry other stuff to the beach like jeeps, tanks, crates, etc once the troops are offloaded and a beachhead is established.  Probably wouldn't work sawing a jeep or tank in half in order to get half of it out each side.....probably.    Just because the guys that devised it are long dead and gone doesn't mean that the idea was bad.  A lot of times hindsight "appears" to be 20/20 is because it only takes in a fraction of what the "real time" problems were, such is the problem on making strong moral judgements on events in history.  We weren't there and we can't imagine the circumstances or the scope and the totality of the environment at that given time. We look back 2000 years think how immoral slavery was.  In 2000 years they are gonna look back on us with their fusion powered water burners and underwater cities and tell their kids how evil we were to deface the earths surface with out cities, roads and pollution.  Just food for thought.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 14, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> But unless you were repeatedly taught or told the story of somebody being resurrected the likelihood of you believing such an event is true would be very low.



I'll go a step further.  You can be told a story about "X" a million times and not believe it, but conversely you never have to be told a story about "X" even one time, yet once you experience "X" whether you've ever been told the story or not you will believe "X" exists.  I'm speaking of experiencing God of course.



> In other words, the basic laws of how the world works (not the whole universe, just our world here on Earth) are apparent to nearly every adult human. Any obvious variance from our formed reality is generally viewed with skepticism, as it should be.



The "bandwagon" appeal is a logical fallacy whether one argues it from a believers or A/A standpoint.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 14, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Im glad y’all are here……….this whole time I’m thinking I’m intellectually challenged. Not a knock at you at all @Israel but I get loster than a ball in high weeds sometimes. I’ve often thought “this dude has got to be a for real Writer with a wealth of info stored in that head”, who else can think of that much stuff to respond to a question with!


This is how I picture Israel getting ready to post to the AAA forum


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 15, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> This is how I picture Israel getting ready to post to the AAA forum
> View attachment 1163606


? ?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2022)

It was a war of atritition and numbers. One side had to overwhelm the other before the other side could kill enough men to halt an invasion.
There were not enough pill boxes and machine gun nests to cover all of the Higgins boats. Some Ducks took the brunt of the fire so that the others could make it through. The defense could not keep up with the sheer numbers of men hitting the beaches even though the pre-landing bombing missed the marks and most of thr defensivepositionsremained intact. The fake intelligence had Hitler move many of his forces off some of those beaches to other locations thinking the landings would be elsewhere. 
Some beaches were slaughter houses while others went relatively unopposed.
The boats were designed to do what was needed. Get men to shore knowing that enemy fire will be drawn to some so that others could be overlooked.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 15, 2022)

Any of ya`ll watch the movie Gettysburg?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> Any of ya`ll watch the movie Gettysburg?


Absolutely


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2022)

Chamberlain and the 20th Maine.

*edit big thumbs hit 3 instead of 2


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2022)

Israel said:


> Yes, "swinging the barn door" a phrase that impressed me (and does still) with all its implications I imagine, is the cause of some linking in memory to him.


I've walked those woods that flank Little Round Top a few times imagining where the actual stand took place.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 15, 2022)

Old European warfare. It was bad enough with longbows and swords. Once blackpowder was invented the bloodshed intensified and it took several hundred years for people of European lineage to abandon that concept.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 15, 2022)

Or, have I fallen through a worm hole? - Israel

You created the wormhole!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> Old European warfare. It was bad enough with longbows and swords. Once blackpowder was invented the bloodshed intensified and it took several hundred years for people of European lineage to abandon that concept.


The advancement from smooth bore to rifling really advanced the causualties. Grouping together in large numbers to send lead in large numbers hoping some balls will find their mark kind of worked when smoothbores were standard issue.
Rifling and mini-balls changed that tactic in deadly dramatic fashion but as you said....many of those old mass charge concepts stayed on into WW1 and machine guns were devastating. 
By WW2 they still had to use such overwhelming force tactics for beach landings but wised up on having thousands of foot soldiers attack in mass groups congregated together.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2022)

Israel said:


> yes. It's kind of an image I too have considered...though never standing on that particular battlefield. The swinging of that door to a closing meant the opening to all peril of mortality by facing an even fiercer onslaught...when the more (and no doubt extremely) pressing matter would be to hide and seek cover.
> 
> I always marvel how that is done in such situation...when every thing screams duck and cover...and somehow a man stands and moves forward.
> 
> Yes, always a marvel to me.


https://gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/tour-the-gettysburg-battlefield/little-round-top-tour-map/

https://gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/union-monuments/maine/20th-maine/


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 15, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I've walked those woods that flank Little Round Top a few times imagining where the actual stand took place.


Same here. My father is somewhat of a Civil War buff, has a pretty extensive library of books, maps etc. Have gone with him to a number of battlefields.
Gettysburg will send chills up your spine.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 15, 2022)

Israel said:


> yes. It's kind of an image I too have considered...though never standing on that particular battlefield. The swinging of that door to a closing meant the opening to all peril of mortality by facing an even fiercer onslaught...when the more (and no doubt extremely) pressing matter would be to hide and seek cover.
> 
> I always marvel how that is done in such situation...when every thing screams duck and cover...and somehow a man stands and moves forward.
> 
> Yes, always a marvel to me.





> I always marvel how that is done in such situation...when every thing screams duck and cover...and somehow a man stands and moves forward.


I cant even imagine the resolve it would require to line up like that and march forward into fire.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> Any of ya`ll watch the movie Gettysburg?



Nope but I will now.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 15, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Nope but I will now.



It's made for TV with Tom Berenger in it. It's pretty good.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 15, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I cant even imagine the resolve it would require to line up like that and march forward into fire.



As a military combat vet, I will say I'm not a big fan of that style of fighting.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 15, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> As a military combat vet, I will say I'm not a big fan of that style of fighting.


1st - A salute of respect to you sir.
2nd - I can remember being a 17 year old Marine literally praying for the opportunity to go into combat somewhere, anywhere. Boy, talk about being young and dumb 
But yeah, it took some real cajones to fight in that style.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 15, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> 1st - A salute of respect to you sir.
> 2nd - I can remember being a 17 year old Marine literally praying for the opportunity to go into combat somewhere, anywhere. Boy, talk about being young and dumb
> But yeah, it took some real cajones to fight in that style.



Speaking of Marines, when I was at the MEPS station (or whatever they called the place where the military handles all branches and processes your paperwork & whatnot when you sign up) before joining the Army they had these little Bibles they gave away free for those who wanted one. Anyway, there was a group of us potential recruits in a waiting area and this guy randomly starts ripping up a Bible with a sneer on his face.
Of course, somebody asked him why he was doing that that, and he said "because I'm joining the MARINES, and this is just how much of a bad*** I am!" 

Sorry, but if you truly are a bad*** you would have done it with your teeth or ripped the whole thing in half in one rip or something.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Speaking of Marines, when I was at the MEPS station (or whatever they called the place where the military handles all branches and processes your paperwork & whatnot when you sign up) before joining the Army they had these little Bibles they gave away free for those who wanted one. Anyway, there was a group of us potential recruits in a waiting area and this guy randomly starts ripping up a Bible with a sneer on his face.
> Of course, somebody asked him why he was doing that that, and he said "because I'm joining the MARINES, and this is just how much of a bad*** I am!"
> 
> Sorry, but if you truly are a bad*** you would have done it with your teeth or ripped the whole thing in half in one rip or something.



Probably wound up quitting in receiving before he ever got his DIs.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 15, 2022)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Probably wound up quitting in receiving before he ever got his DIs.



I wouldn't doubt that a bit!  When my son did his four years (eight counting inactive reserves) in 2012 he said all the smack-talking tough guys were the first ones to quit in basic! They actually said "I quit! Send me home, I don't want to be in the Army"  before basic even STARTED!  I would say I saw the same thing in both Air Force & Army basic training, but nobody quit! I guess in the 80's guys just figured "why sign up just to quit? That's pretty stupid!" so we sucked it up and got through basic. 

Granted my son had recent sandbox vet Drill Sergeants - mostly all 11B - at Fort Benning who did...not...play.  My son was the smallest guy in his platoon and the _second worst athlete in the world_ (I'm the worst!) and he made it through. He got a bloody nose at the grenade range (long story) but he made it through.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I wouldn't doubt that a bit!  When my son did his four years (eight counting inactive reserves) in 2012 he said all the smack-talking tough guys were the first ones to quit in basic! They actually said "I quit! Send me home, I don't want to be in the Army"  before basic even STARTED!  I would say I saw the same thing in both Air Force & Army basic training, but nobody quit! I guess in the 80's guys just figured "why sign up just to quit? That's pretty stupid!" so we sucked it up and got through basic.
> 
> Granted my son had recent sandbox vet Drill Sergeants - mostly all 11B - at Fort Benning who did...not...play.  My son was the smallest guy in his platoon and the _second worst athlete in the world_ (I'm the worst!) and he made it through. He got a bloody nose at the grenade range (long story) but he made it through.



I got tossed over the barricade at the grenade range.  You were in a trench with a sand bag barricade around the top.  The instructor faced you.  The sequence went like this. He said, "THUMB CLIP," "PULL PIN ,"  "THROW GRENADE."  After each order you did what he said.  He said "THUMB CLIP."  I popped the clip off with my thumb.  The said, "PULL PIN."  I pulled the pin and threw that sucker probably 100 yards down range and the target probably wasn't but about 30.  We both ducked as it exploded.  He picked me up by my neck with a seething rage in his eyes and screamed, "I didn't order you to THROW GRENADE."  He then threw me over the back barricade like I was nothing.  I just remember flying through the air and hitting the ground running back to my assembly area.  I didn't care.  That sucker made me nervous once I pulled that pin.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I wouldn't doubt that a bit!  When my son did his four years (eight counting inactive reserves) in 2012 he said all the smack-talking tough guys were the first ones to quit in basic! They actually said "I quit! Send me home, I don't want to be in the Army"  before basic even STARTED!  I would say I saw the same thing in both Air Force & Army basic training, but nobody quit! I guess in the 80's guys just figured "why sign up just to quit? That's pretty stupid!" so we sucked it up and got through basic.
> 
> Granted my son had recent sandbox vet Drill Sergeants - mostly all 11B - at Fort Benning who did...not...play.  My son was the smallest guy in his platoon and the _second worst athlete in the world_ (I'm the worst!) and he made it through. He got a bloody nose at the grenade range (long story) but he made it through.



Honestly as a general rule the smaller, shorter guys did a lot better at PI than the bigger guys all around.   I think it was because they had a higher muscle to weight ratio which helped out in pretty much everything especially endurance.  The big lumbering musclebound guys could struggle at times especially on the obstacle course and confidence course which favor agility, balance and body control over pure strength.


----------

