# The atheist creed?



## ddd-shooter (Jul 22, 2013)

The Atheist Creed by Steve Turner

This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us. We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy is OK. We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons; Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it's compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson. What's selected is average. What's average is normal. What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good. It's only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear:

"State of Emergency!" "Sniper Kills Ten!" "Troops on Rampage!" "Whites go Looting!" "Bomb Blasts School!"

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

Ravi has quoted this in a couple of his lectures, there is so much truth in it even though he threw a couple of laughs in.

Thanks for posting!


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 22, 2013)

You all do recognize satire when you see it right?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

Some guy named Steve Turner represents all Atheists about as much as every priest,reverend, pastor or Sunday School teacher that molested a child represents all Christians.


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Some guy named Steve Turner represents all Atheists about as much as every priest,reverend, pastor or Sunday School teacher that molested a child represents all Christians.



 It's a satirical postmodern creed illustrating some of the absurdity of naturalistic worldviews. 

Steve Turner, (English journalist),"Creed," his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God?


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 22, 2013)

The ones who beat their guns into tractors will soon be under the foot of those who kept their guns well cleaned and loaded.


Whether that entire thing is satire or not, that little part is not.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Some guy named Steve Turner represents all Atheists about as much as every priest,reverend, pastor or Sunday School teacher that molested a child represents all Christians.


Nobody said he represented anybody.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

Nicodemus said:


> The ones who beat their guns into tractors will soon be under the foot of those who kept their guns well cleaned and loaded.
> 
> 
> Whether that entire thing is satire or not, that little part is not.



You made that more modern but I still agree.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

Nicodemus said:


> Whether that entire thing is satire or not, that little part is not.



I don't think any of it is untrue.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Nobody said he represented anybody.



string did you read the first sentence of the article? Probably not so here it is...

"This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us."
Then it goes on with a pile of "we's"

cmon man, i think you just want to somehow "win" on a technicality anymore. I like the old String much better.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think any of it is untrue.



I'd say that entire article is accurate for one guy named Steve Turner and that is about it.
And all of it might be satirical like Hunter Rich has said a few times.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

Is Steve Turner SFD's pen name?


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 22, 2013)

It's actually called "Modern Thinker's Creed" 

I do not know much about the author, British journalist Steve Turner, but he has some other Christian poems, such as this excerpt,

If Jesus was thirty today they wouldn’t really care about the public ministry, they’d be too busy investigating His finances and trying to prove He had Church or Mafia connections. The miracles would be explained by an eminent and controversial magician, His claims to be God’s Son recognised as excellent examples of Spoken English and immediately incorporated into the O-Level syllabus, His sinless perfection considered by moral philosophers as, OK, but a bit repressive.

If Jesus was thirty-one today He’d be the fly in everyone’s ointment- the sort of controversial person who stands no chance of eminence. Communists would expel Him, capitalists would exploit Him or have Him smeared by people who know a thing or two about God. Doctors would accuse Him of quackery, soldiers would accuse Him of cowardice, theologians would take Him aside and try to persuade Him of His non-existence.

If Jesus was thirty-two today we’d have to end it all. Heretic, fundamentalist, literalist, puritan, pacifist, non-conformist, we’d take Him away and quietly end the argument. But the argument would rumble in the ground at the end of three days and would break out and walk around as though death was some bug, saying ‘I am the resurrection and the life… No man cometh to the Father but by me’. While the magicians researched new explanations and the semanticists wondered exactly what He meant by ‘I’ and ‘No man’ there would be those who stand around amused, asking for something called proof.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string did you read the first sentence of the article? Probably not so here it is...
> 
> "This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us."
> Then it goes on with a pile of "we's"
> ...


I'm not trying to win anything Bullet. I thought you were saying that ddd was insinuating that Turner actually did speak for all atheists by posting this.



bullethead said:


> I'd say that entire article is accurate for one guy named Steve Turner and that is about it.
> And all of it might be satirical like Hunter Rich has said a few times.


It is a satirical piece, showing the absurdity of relativism in which atheism is immersed with.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You made that more modern but I still agree.





Yea, it`s supposed to be plowshares. 

Ya`ll have a good one.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 22, 2013)

I came within a hare's breath of posting that last week


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Is Steve Turner SFD's pen name?



I knew it!


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Some guy named Steve Turner represents all Atheists about as much as every priest,reverend, pastor or Sunday School teacher that molested a child represents all Christians.



Steve Turner probably represents his atheist denomination, and no others.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 22, 2013)

I posted it tongue in cheek. 
A favorite tactic of many on both sides is to embellish to then point to the absurd.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Steve Turner probably represents his atheist denomination, and no others.



I think he is a Christian and wrote the piece as satire towards Atheists.
Didn't check him out though


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

If I had to pick, I like this one better.

An Atheist’s Creed

February 11, 2006 By Adam Lee 

Before launching into the weightier topics which this blog will cover, I thought it would be helpful to first establish who I am, what I believe and where I am coming from. This, then, is an atheist’s creed – not in the sense of a dogmatically imposed set of standards, but rather a set of general principles, refined from experience and reflection, that guide how I try to live my life. You are welcome to share them if you like.

These truths I hold to be self-evident:

We are human beings, intelligent and self-aware, possessing both reason and emotion, with the potential for immense good as well as terrible evil. Which of these two comes to be depends on our choices.

Every human being possesses inherent worth, and every human life is equally valuable. Our conscious existence is a thing worthwhile for its own sake, requiring no further justification.

By the exercise of our free will, we can select our own purpose and imbue our lives with meaning. Each person has the right and the responsibility to steer their own course through life.

Through the use of reason and conscience, we can perceive morality, defined as the principles of behavior which produce the greatest happiness and the least suffering both now and in the future. Morality is not dependent on personal opinion or societal prejudice, but is objective and universal and is accessible to every intelligent being. We should, to the best of our ability, obey these principles and be good to each other.

Human beings possess fundamental rights and freedoms upon which no one may infringe. Among these are freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to privacy, the right to an education, the right to live in peace and safety, and the right to seek happiness.

There is a world that exists independently of us, which is not altered by will alone, but which we can learn about and come to understand and control.

Only through reason and the scientific method can we hope to learn how the world works. No other method of gaining knowledge is reliable and all claims to knowledge not gained through this method should be considered suspect.

The free human intelligence is a thing of awesome power, and has the right to travel and explore wherever it desires to go. No reason can ever justify the censorship or suppression of ideas.

The only ethical form of government is democracy. Every society has both the right and the obligation to revolt against and overthrow any other system.

The purpose of government is to establish justice, insure peace, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to all its citizens. Any government that does not speak for all its citizens equally or that ignores the needs of its most needy members deserves to be removed from power at once.

Wealth and power can only be a means to an end and never an end in themselves.

Throughout history, human beings have created a vast number of religious belief systems, all of which describe a supernatural world beyond our own. There is no good evidence in favor of any of these belief systems and no reason to consider any of them to be true. Supernaturalism and superstition have never done anything more than harm us, turn us against each other and hold us back. The effort and resources we pour into religion should instead be used for the benefit of all our fellow human beings.

And finally, I affirm that despite all our flaws and follies, despite all the darkness and madness in our past, and despite the forces of ignorance and hatred that beset us as never before, there is and will always be hope. We human beings have undreamed-of potential which we are only just beginning to touch on, and as long as people of courage and principle are willing to stand and defend what is right, we can create for ourselves and our descendants a future of bright light and clear air, a better world where we have at last achieved the good it was always in our power to bring about.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think he is a Christian and wrote the piece as satire towards Atheists.
> Didn't check him out though



You could be on to something.
.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If I had to pick, I like this one better.
> 
> An Atheist’s Creed
> 
> ...



I like it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If I had to pick, I like this one better.
> 
> An Atheist’s Creed
> 
> ...



He starts with the premise that





> Every human being possesses inherent worth, and every human life is equally valuable. Our conscious existence is a thing worthwhile for its own sake, requiring no further justification.


which is a complete assumption on his part and goes from there.

An atheist could very well buy into this, on the other hand, another atheist could say just the opposite and write another article based on his assumption and it would be just as valid an argument.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He starts with the premise that
> which is a complete assumption on his part and goes from there.
> 
> An atheist could very well buy into this, on the other hand, another atheist could say just the opposite and write another article based on his assumption and it would be just a valid an argument.



In the 1st stage argument from Dr. Wallas Dillard he states that the same can be said of believers in God(s).


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In the 1st stage argument from Dr. Wallas Dillard he states that the same can be said of believers in God(s).



You would have to show me that.

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You would have to show me that.
> 
> http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42



No not that guy...
I am talking about a seminar I attended by a guy named Dr. Wallas Dillard, your buddy is Dr. Dallas Willard


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If I had to pick, I like this one better.
> 
> An Atheist’s Creed
> 
> ...



Lots of assumptions that are not arrived at through scientific method. 
I will take his advice and consider it suspect.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Lots of assumptions that are not arrived at through scientific method.
> I will take his advice and consider it suspect.



Yeah reminds me of religion too.
I just said I liked it better than the first one.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jul 22, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Steve Turner probably represents his atheist denomination, and no others.



There is no atheist denomination. 

Atheism is one thing and one thing only. The belief that there are basically no gods. That's it. To one degre or another. It's not about anything else. 

The OP is ridiculous. Insanity.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In the 1st stage argument from Dr. Wallas Dillard he states that the same can be said of believers in God(s).





bullethead said:


> No not that guy...
> I am talking about a seminar I attended by a guy named Dr. Wallas Dillard, your buddy is Dr. Dallas Willard



I guessing you don't disagree with my post then? (post #24)


BTW, didn't Dr. Dillard right an article called "three stage argument for da debil"?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I guessing you don't disagree with my post then? (post #24)
> 
> 
> BTW, didn't Dr. Dillard right an article called "three stage argument for da debil"?



I do disagree with post #24

I have not seen that article.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I do disagree with post #24


How so?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How so?



I'd still like to know why you disagree with my assessment bullet.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'd still like to know why you disagree with my assessment bullet.



Because he actually starts with:


> We are human beings, intelligent and self-aware, possessing both reason and emotion, with the potential for immense good as well as terrible evil. Which of these two comes to be depends on our choices.



And I agree with the author said in that 1st statement.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Because he actually starts with:
> 
> 
> And I agree with the author said in that 1st statement.


The point remains that.....


stringmusic said:


> An atheist could very well buy into this, on the other hand, another atheist could say just the opposite and write another article based on his assumption and it would be just as valid an argument.


Do you disagree with that?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The point remains that.....
> 
> Do you disagree with that?



No I do not disagree with that. Then again I never claimed that guy spoke for everyone that does not believe in a God, I never said everyone that does not believe in a God thinks the same as that author. All I said was that I liked that version better than the first one posted.
I am not claiming it to be anything other than what it is...in my opinion, a slightly better version of the OP.

All you have done is use the exact same argument used against religion to show how assertion is used.
Let me stop clapping for a moment....
YEAH! 
Now you know how we feel when we read the majority of religious assertions on here.

String to Bullet..
Like?
Show me exact post.
Who did that?

So before it goes there, scroll through all the posts and find that too. It is in among the flip flopping, presumptions, un-provables and non-evidence that litters the threads.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No I do not disagree with that.



That's all I wanted to know.

Another question. If another atheist wrote the exact opposite blog, and you know that it is just a valid, why do you like this one more?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> All you have done is use the exact same argument used against religion to show how assertion is used.



Just fyi, that's not what I did at all. The argument that I used cannot be used against religion. 

There are arguments against Christianity by other religions, but to the Christian, they are not just as valid. While on the other hand, as you've already admitted, the exact opposite argument from the blog you posted is just as valid as the argument in the blog.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's all I wanted to know.
> 
> Another question. If another atheist wrote the exact opposite blog, and you know that it is just a valid, why do you like this one more?



I just liked it better than the first one posted. Nothing more


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Just fyi, that's not what I did at all. The argument that I used cannot be used against religion.
> 
> There are arguments against Christianity by other religions, but to the Christian, they are not just as valid. While on the other hand, as you've already admitted, the exact opposite argument from the blog you posted is just as valid as the argument in the blog.




Assertion can and is used against all religion. 

I'm not sure you have read any blog because I am not sure where you are getting an argument and also an exact opposite argument. ? .


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I just liked it better than the first one posted. Nothing more



I'm sure you have your reasons?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm sure you have your reasons?



Do you own a brown leather couch ?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Assertion can and is used against all religion.
> 
> I'm not sure you have read any blog because I am not sure where you are getting an argument and also an exact opposite argument. ? .



It's hypothetical, but I'm sure I could find some existential writings showing that humans do not have any inherent worth or that humans are not all equal.

I wasn't arguing the fact that there are actually people that philosophically disagree with the premise of the blog, but that under an atheistic worldview, the exact opposite philosophical position holds the same weight as the one posed in the blog.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Do you own a brown leather couch ?



No?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's hypothetical, but I'm sure I could find some existential writings showing that humans do not have any inherent worth or that humans are not all equal.


Yeah it's in the Bible



stringmusic said:


> I wasn't arguing the fact that there are actually people that philosophically disagree with the premise of the blog, but that under an atheistic worldview, the exact opposite philosophical position holds the same weight as the one posed in the blog.



Well you have done a fine job. Darn fine job.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yeah it's in the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have done a fine job. Darn fine job.



C'mon bullet, you can put up a better argument than that...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> C'mon bullet, you can put up a better argument than that...



I can.
But that is the one I am gonna use.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I can.
> But that is the one I am gonna use.



I wouldn't want to have to try to argue from that position either.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I wouldn't want to have to try to argue from that position either.



The only position I made was one using the Bible.
Is that the one you are talking about me using?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's hypothetical, but I'm sure I could find some existential writings showing that humans do not have any inherent worth or that humans are not all equal.



Slavery in the Bible
explain how that has humans as equals or are of all the same inherent worth.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The only position I made was one using the Bible.
> Is that the one you are talking about me using?



You've taken the position of liking one argument of giving humans value and worth, and admitted that the opposite argument holds just the same weight. It kinda makes it hard to defend you liking of the first position when you don't have any grounds to denounce the opposite position.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Slavery in the Bible
> explain how that has humans as equals or are of all the same inherent worth.



If you can sucessfuly defend your position I've outlined in post #52, I'll be glad to take on this task.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You've taken the position of liking one argument of giving humans value and worth, and admitted that the opposite argument holds just the same weight. It kinda makes it hard to defend you liking of the first position when you don't have any grounds to denounce the opposite position.



I did not disagree with your asserted hypothetical counter blog.
I am going with the actual blog that is not hypothetical.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I did not disagree with your asserted hypothetical counter blog.
> I am going with the actual blog that is not hypothetical.



 What? You do not disagree with the hypothetical blog that is the exact opposite of the real blog that you do agree with? So you agree to the argument that humans have value and worth and you also agree with the argument that humans do not have value and worth?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am going with the actual blog that is not hypothetical.



And like I said before, I can find some existential writings if you'd like, that would make my hypothetical blog not hypotetical, I just thought I'd save us some time because that's not the point.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What? You do not disagree with the hypothetical blog that is the exact opposite of the real blog that you do agree with? So you agree to the argument that humans have value and worth and you also agree with the argument that humans do not have value and worth?



Initially I thought you were talking about the first article posted. The satirical article. For some reason I thought you were referring to that as being the other hypothetical blog.

I misunderstood and apologize for the confusion.

I now see you are talking about some made up blog that does not exist, just to make an argument.. If so, then NO, I do not agree that humans do not have value and or worth/do not agree with your second hypothetical blog.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Initially I thought you were talking about the first article posted. The satirical article. For some reason I thought you were referring to that as being the other hypothetical blog.
> 
> I misunderstood and apologize for the confusion.
> 
> I now see you are talking about some made up blog that does not exist, just to make an argument.. If so, then NO, I do not agree that humans do not have value and or worth/do not agree with your second hypothetical blog.


Bullet, my original statement was....


			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> An atheist could very well buy into this, on the other hand, another atheist could say just the opposite and write another article based on his assumption and it would be just as valid an argument.


Existentialist argue that human beings have no inherent worth(other than the things one does in life). Why are they wrong?

What's makes your atheistic position that humans do in fact have value and worth any more valid than the existentialist?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 24, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I now see you are talking about some made up blog that does not exist, just to make an argument..


Also.....


stringmusic said:


> And like I said before, I can find some existential writings if you'd like, that would make my hypothetical blog not hypotetical, I just thought I'd save us some time because that's not the point.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Also.....



Right, figured that out much after I commented already thinking it was the initial article posted.
Somewhere in our conversation I had asked you if you read the two articles because it had me confused.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, my original statement was....
> 
> Existentialist argue that human beings have no inherent worth(other than the things one does in life). Why are they wrong?
> 
> What's makes your atheistic position that humans do in fact have value and worth any more valid than the existentialist?



string. We have gone over and over and over the same stuff with Morals, Logic, Truth, Life, etc etc etc. It is the same answers from me and the same questions from you. You want to nitpick it all down to "were did we learn to cross our "T's" and dot our "I's"?
Bottom line is,
You say God
I say something else.

I don't think or care if anyone is more right or more wrong.
Me personally, I tend to like the humans most. Like my favorite team...I root for us.

If it came down to a survival situation between eating someone or eating the dog....I'm gonna eat the dog.....first anyway.....

I am not going to break every little thing down in each and every discussion. You don't have enough ammo to break it down so far that I am going to see God. And I don't have enough ammo that will make you not see God.
You will assert that I asserted. 
I will assumed you assumed.
We will each point out we used logic and that the other one didn't.
It is beyond enough already.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string. We have gone over and over and over the same stuff with Morals, Logic, Truth, Life, etc etc etc. It is the same answers from me and the same questions from you. You want to nitpick it all down to "were did we learn to cross our "T's" and dot our "I's"?
> Bottom line is,
> You say God
> I say something else.
> ...



Well, you probably should.

If you don't want to have a discussion about it, that's fine, it's a tough position to defend.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Well, you probably should.
> 
> If you don't want to have a discussion about it, that's fine, it's a tough position to defend.



I have not found any position tougher to defend than one that claims a God and has absolutely nothing to show for it after making a defense. All the arguing, finger pointing, and claims and at the end still no God to show off.

As far as any position I choose to defend, I handle them well enough. I answer everything that needs to be answered. And when I have hit a wall with someone else that cannot see or does not accept the answers then it is time to move on to a more productive thread.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Well, you probably should.
> 
> If you don't want to have a discussion about it, that's fine, it's a tough position to defend.



I have not found any position tougher to defend than one that claims a God and has absolutely nothing to show for it after making a defense. All the arguing, finger pointing, and claims and at the end still no God to show off.

As far as any position I choose to defend, I handle them well enough. I answer everything that needs to be answered. And when I have hit a wall with someone else that cannot see or does not accept the answers then it is time to move on to a more productive thread.

Again, you will see that I have defended my position right underneath the Highlighted you so carefully took the time to make Red, but you must have missed my answer. Or chose to not accept it. Same Old Same old.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have not found any position tougher to defend than one that claims a God and has absolutely nothing to show for it after making a defense. All the arguing, finger pointing, and claims and at the end still no God to show off.
> 
> As far as any position I choose to defend, I handle them well enough. I answer everything that needs to be answered. And when I have hit a wall with someone else that cannot see or does not accept the answers then it is time to move on to a more productive thread.
> 
> Again, you will see that I have defended my position right underneath the Highlighted you so carefully took the time to make Red, but you must have missed my answer. Or chose to not accept it. Same Old Same old.



If you want to call "I like humans and I root for them" defending your position then go right ahead. 

I'll accept that answer, and I'll take it a the poorest I've ever heard to the questions I asked, but, that's ok, I don't always answer questions great either.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you want to call "I like humans and I root for them" defending your position then go right ahead.
> 
> I'll accept that answer, and I'll take it a the poorest I've ever heard to the questions I asked, but, that's ok, I don't always answer questions great either.



I am humbled that you would do such a thing for me.
In all these posts, all these different threads I have given the same basic bare bones answers lately.
In previous threads I have given you thoughtful detailed answers and some that were very detailed and defended as well as anyone can defend something.
In every case though you just keep going on asking the same repetitive questions over and over no matter what answer you get. I am just trying to end the nonsense early.
I have gotten the feeling that you would not recognize or acknowledge a well defended answer if it bit you in the "talking donkey".


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am humbled that you would do such a thing for me.
> In all these posts, all these different threads I have given the same basic bare bones answers lately.
> In previous threads I have given you thoughtful detailed answers and some that were very detailed and defended as well as anyone can defend something.


I don't remember your thoughtful detailed answers, I'm not saying you didn't give any, I just don't remember them. Why don't you humor me?



> I have gotten the feeling that you would not recognize or acknowledge a well defended answer if it bit you in the "taking donkey".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't remember your thoughtful detailed answers, I'm not saying you didn't give any, I just don't remember them. Why don't you humor me?



I provided thoughtful detailed answers for a few years on here to you and up until about 4or5 threads ago.

I have found it easier to converse with others than with you and your current tactics.
I still think your a good guy but you are into the nitpicking stuff that really doesn't have much to do with anything other than to nitpick.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I provided thoughtful detailed answers for a few years on here to you and up until about 4or5 threads ago.
> 
> I have found it easier to converse with others than with you and your current tactics.
> I still think your a good guy but you are into the nitpicking stuff that really doesn't have much to do with anything other than to nitpick.



I don't have any "new tactics", my questions are as genuine as they've always been. I don't consider the questions I'm asking about this subject to be nitpicking at all. You make a statement that you like a particular position in a blog that you post and I asked why you don't like the opposite position the same.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't have any "new tactics", my questions are as genuine as they've always been. I don't consider the questions I'm asking about this subject to be nitpicking at all. You make a statement that you like a particular position in a blog that you post and I asked why you don't like the opposite position the same.



And I answered why. Yet you continue.
You don't consider your tactics as nitpicking, you don't consider my answers as valid, and you don't accept the the ones that are valid.
It is a pointless dance.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't have any "new tactics", my questions are as genuine as they've always been. I don't consider the questions I'm asking about this subject to be nitpicking at all. You make a statement that you like a particular position in a blog that you post and I asked why you don't like the opposite position the same.



I just need to state my answers. I give reasonable follow up as necessary. There is no need to keep going deeper and deeper into the answers past a certain point because they are answers about my personal feeling and opinion. They are not answers that can be proven or dis-proven.
I like one blog better than a hypothetical blog. I like humans.
Why really is not at all important.


----------

