[Fluffy]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 10:14, said:

Say what you like. I do not belong to a group. Your attack on atheists was an attack on all individuals who are atheist. Call them a group if you want to; any combination of people or things can be defined as a group, even if the basic for their being grouped is invalid or nonsensical.

I didn't attack anyone, but thanks for reminding me why I should stay silent on this topic.

[mikeh]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-21, 10:00, said:

Let me doubt it, I've been subject of rataliation from members of your group to what was perceived as an attack to your group or an individual of it for mor than a month. Even if you don't claim to form groups you act in many ways like one.

Gonzalo

You started it all by suggesting a causal link between an increase in atheistic thinking and your perception that we have seen an increase in random mass murders.

This not surprisingly generated some strong responses from those of us who are atheists and who didn't appreciate your unthinking, uninformed suggestion.

Rather than doing the normal thing, which would have been to apologize, you claimed it was a joke.

You then go on to compound your attacks by stating that when you imagined life without a god, you wanted to kill yourself, which is bad enough, but that you also wanted to kill others. Now, that was arguably merely a confession that you are potentially a mass murderer restrained only by fear of god, but it sure sounds like you think that your experience may be shared by others: in other words, that at least some atheists are at risk of turning into killers due to their non-belief.

Then you go on to openly doubt that atheists can have a good moral sense because why should they, in the absence of the teachings of religion.

In short, you make a series of insulting posts. You indirectly accuse those of us who don't share your world view of being amoral beings capable of horrific acts and without a moral compass.

Now, I fully understand that you wrote out of ignorance and meant no real insult. I accept that you have wrestled with your beliefs, and that your questions are honestly, even if mistakenly, based on your thinking.

But you cannot expect to publicly attack a whole range of people, on a level that goes to their very nature, and expect that you will not hear from many of them.

I have not personally discussed you and your posts with anyone. My entire response has been online in this forum. There has been no co-ordination between any of us as far as I know.

What you have experienced is not retaliation. What you have experienced is vociferous rebuttal and critique of your ignorant opinions. Not 'stupid' opinions. Not 'malicious' opinions. Just ignorant, as in lacking in knowledge. We are all of us ignorant in far broader areas than those in which we are learned or well informed. Your ignorance currently includes atheism. Don't take the replies as attacks: take them as an education in how some people think differently than you do. Once you understand why we think the way we do, you may choose to disagree but at least your posts will then be informed and not ignorant.

[Fluffy]

 mikeh, on 2013-January-21, 11:14, said:

My question was what evidence you could point to that positively supports the existence of god: evidence beyond the usual: 'the universe exists, we don't understand it, so it must be god' sort of nonsense.

I searched your posts and I quote:

'I have no evidence that [god] ever showed up, no evidence that he is there-I just believe'

So your answer to my question is 'none'.

I know of no other realm of human understanding in which this would be seen as even remotely rational or defensible.

,snip 16 lines>

and lectures, so I am happy that he has seen fit to put some of his money where his mouth is: to try to promote rational thinking. He is outgunned, financially, by several orders of magnitude by organized religion, but more power to him. That hardly, however, constitutes any kind of grouping of atheists.

You keep reading what you want, missinterpret it the way you want, drawing your own conclusions and wich can be even worse, write a 20 lines reply to a 1 liner for showoff to the fellows of your comunity.

There is a lot more evidence of god existence on this thread than you have got, and Codo and me are not very well versed, for example look here: http://www.bridgebas...338#entry698338 Now, I don't think this is a very strong evidence, but given that it got 4 upvotes, on your scale it is probably pretty strong

[diana_eva]

I don't see which of the poll options equals "I belong to a Church or organization", or "I take the Bible as proof". When I voted, I simply stated how I feel, but I don't follow local rituals unless forced by social circumstances and I certainly don't believe God will punish me for doing laundry on Sunday. I think one can sincerely feel there is a god without being associated to any organized form of adoration.

[Fluffy]

 mikeh, on 2013-January-21, 11:29, said:

This not surprisingly generated some strong responses from those of us who are atheists and who didn't appreciate your unthinking, uninformed suggestion.

This is probably a hot point, here, you show your arrogancy one more time showing that what constitutes evidence for you is right, and what constitues evidence for people who disagree with you is ignorance. I don't know where you got all this arrogancy from because not so long ago it was not there. You can write down another 30 lines of why you are sure of it for your fellows, but don't lie to yourself thinking that they are directed at me, because I won't read them.

BTW regarding the first point where I expressed my opinion and the atheists who claim to be tolerant got infuriated, I still think atheism can lead to mass murder, but Rik convinced me that well thought atheism won't. Its just the same for all, if you are stupid, and you believe, you can find a sacred book to folow that will lead to you making real stupid and horrendous things. If you are a stupid unhappy atheists who hasn't though about it well enough you can do a suicidal mass murder out of boredom or something else also.

[mgoetze]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-21, 11:34, said:

wich can be even worse, write a 20 lines reply to a 1 liner for showoff to the fellows of your comunity.

You know, you're right. You don't really deserve such thoughtful replies as Mike has been giving you. Shame on him.

And what is it with the obsession with upvoting? Has the Church of Lurpoa infiltrated this thread?

[Fluffy]

its not my obsession, it is mike's obsession (didn't I make it clear?), I suspect he posts for social reasons like recognition or the feeling of winning the argument, seems to me he is always trying to move the debate to the areas where he is strong so that he can show off*. I have nothing against social reasons except that they are not very useful when what you seek is knowledge.

*for example I suspect he is taunting Codo to tell him that Jesus is a proof of god's existance, that way he can talk about his very deep research (and very good IMO, but that is not important) of the non existance of Jesus himself.

Michael you should realioce that YOU are the intended audience for mike's thoughful posts, not me.

[Phil]

I would not have bet this thread would have lasted 29 pages (and counting).

[JLOGIC]

 Phil, on 2013-January-21, 12:29, said:

I would not have bet this thread would have lasted 29 pages (and counting).

IME all threads on religion, politics, or system regulations by the ACBL have a reasonable shot of lasting for a long time with a lot of posts lol.

[Phil]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-January-21, 12:36, said:

IME all threads on religion, politics, or system regulations by the ACBL have a reasonable shot of lasting for a long time with a lot of posts lol.

Yeah, that and homemade signs at closing ceremonies.

[helene_t]

try posting a defensive play problem next time, Phil

[quiddity]

 mikeh, on 2013-January-20, 09:53, said:

We say: we don't know! We say we have open minds...we'd like to know, but we don't and maybe we never will. The religious say: we know! We know with absolute certainty...

At the risk of a very bad bridge analogy: consider 4 hands are dealt face down. Your priest (who played no role in the dealing) tells you that you hold precisely AK32 Q65432 void J72.

You believe him. Why?

The atheist tells you: I don't know what your cards are: I suggest we do some research and find out. The atheist waits until the evidence is there, which can in this case be gathered by looking at the cards.

Here is a slightly different analogy: you hold AK32 Q65432 void J72. RHO opens 1♦ and you're not sure what to do so you ask the priest who has some experience of such matters through years of study and discussions with others who faced similar problems. "You should overcall 1H" he says.
"But why not double? Why not preempt? Why not pass and avoid telling the opponents our shape? How can you prove that 1H is right? I suggest we do some research and find out. I'll wait until the evidence is there."
"Suit yourself," says the priest. "But you'll be waiting a long time. This matter is unprovable, and is likely to remain so, and in the meantime you have your life to live. All I can do is tell you that based on my feelings, my experience, and my study of the past several millennia of human history, that I strongly believe it is right to bid 1H."

[Winstonm]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-21, 11:44, said:

[/size]

This is probably a hot point, here, you show your arrogancy one more time showing that what constitutes evidence for you is right, and what constitues evidence for people who disagree with you is ignorance. I don't know where you got all this arrogancy from because not so long ago it was not there. You can write down another 30 lines of why you are sure of it for your fellows, but don't lie to yourself thinking that they are directed at me, because I won't read them.

BTW regarding the first point where I expressed my opinion and the atheists who claim to be tolerant got infuriated, I still think atheism can lead to mass murder, but Rik convinced me that well thought atheism won't. Its just the same for all, if you are stupid, and you believe, you can find a sacred book to folow that will lead to you making real stupid and horrendous things. If you are a stupid unhappy atheists who hasn't though about it well enough you can do a suicidal mass murder out of boredom or something else also.

Fluffy,

Do you understand that feelings are not evidence? The basis for this schism between belief/non-belief is rooted in objective evidence versus subjective interpretation. It is not that the atheist is arrogant, only that the atheist acknowledges this distinction between objective evidence and subjective interpretation. The basis for this distinction is reasoning, and reasoning is what pulled mankind from the dark ages into the Age of Enlightenment.

Feelings are ephemeral and untrustworthy captains. Better to steer your ship toward the brick, mortar, and light of the lighthouse than to turn this way and that way in the dark because a self-proclaimed "knower" tells you that he alone knows that the lighthouse is to the starboard and your feelings tell you that he is right.

Best.

[Winstonm]

 quiddity, on 2013-January-21, 13:01, said:

Here is a slightly different analogy: you hold AK32 Q65432 void J72. RHO opens 1♦ and you're not sure what to do so you ask the priest who has some experience of such matters through years of study and discussions with others who faced similar problems. "You should overcall 1H" he says.
"But why not double? Why not preempt? Why not pass and avoid telling the opponents our shape? How can you prove that 1H is right? I suggest we do some research and find out. I'll wait until the evidence is there."
"Suit yourself," says the priest. "But you'll be waiting a long time. This matter is unprovable, and is likely to remain so, and in the meantime you have your life to live. All I can do is tell you that based on my feelings, my experience, and my study of the past several millennia of human history, that I strongly believe it is right to bid 1H."

Any lamebrain can see that the void makes this worth an intermediate 2H bid.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-21, 11:44, said:

BTW regarding the first point where I expressed my opinion and the atheists who claim to be tolerant got infuriated, I still think atheism can lead to mass murder,(emphasis mine) but Rik convinced me that well thought atheism won't. Its just the same for all, if you are stupid, and you believe, you can find a sacred book to folow that will lead to you making real stupid and horrendous things. If you are a stupid unhappy atheists who hasn't though about it well enough you can do a suicidal mass murder out of boredom or something else also.

So it's not all atheists who are tend to be morally depraved, but only those whose atheism is not "well thought" and who are stupid and unhappy? So those of us who think of ourselves as intelligent and thoughtful can rest assured that it is not we who are being attacked?

You have admitted that it is fear of God that stops you from being a mass murderer, but other people are not like that. In fact I don't think that belief or otherwise in God has anything to do with the thinking of those who choose, out of boredom (probably the main reason?) to go out and commit mass murder.

I don't think I have ever said anything like this either in person or online, but I'm sorry, I think that you are possibly the most odious, offensive creature it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.

[gwnn]

i wish i had taken the blue pill

[Vampyr]

 gwnn, on 2013-January-21, 13:41, said:

i wish i had taken the blue pill

So you could be utilising it instead of reading silly threads on BBO Forums?

[barmar]

 Phil, on 2013-January-21, 12:29, said:

I would not have bet this thread would have lasted 29 pages (and counting).

You can stop counting.

The thread has degraded into personal attacks, which seems like a good reason to close it.