What are New Atheists really saying when they claim "I lack belief in a god."?

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 22, 2012, 11:33:15 PM10/22/12

to

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see,
if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. If the
majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
known and atheism will become extinct.

(by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")

Davej

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 12:20:31 AM10/23/12

to

On Oct 22, 10:34 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god"

It's too complex for simple minds like Calvin's.

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 12:21:26 AM10/23/12

to

On Oct 22, 11:34 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>

Because it is TRUE, repeat liar.
By Maud'dib, you are dense...

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 2:52:03 AM10/23/12

to

Yap

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 3:44:47 AM10/23/12

to

Why do you care?

To bolster your position, you offer nothing.......so, there is no
pixie in this universe, period.

Les

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:04:47 AM10/23/12

to

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:33:15 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.

Yer we note that the claim is unsubstantiated and that we are simply
expected to accept it just on the say so of the claimant

> In other words, they have
>no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
>may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
>to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
>judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
>brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
>it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
>belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
>commitment or non-action concerning belief.

Of course you can remain without belief. All you do is note that
others tell us they believe there is a god yet offer no justification
for accepting these beliefs ourselves. This does not mean we should
them automatically start an opposite belief that is equally
unjustifed. (As theists keep telling us!)

For example here is what Matt Slick (another New theist) ) says:

>For the
>assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does.
- from see overposted thread "Why have the New atheist re-defined
the word Atheist?"

And he is quite right (which probably makes him the first honest
theist in history in that he admits his relgious beliefs are
unjustfied.) What is the point of holding a position I cannot
justify? That makes no sense so, I along with most atheists, hold
neither position.

Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold,
since they cannot attack us for the postion we do hold without first
justifying theirs. This is such an obvious thing they would do it but
for one problem: They have no justification (as Slick admits)

In other words they cannot show that their religious beliefs are other
than fantasy plucked out of ignorance and superstition.

Which more than justifies our absence of relgious beliefs.

Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010

Les

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:12:30 AM10/23/12

to

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>On Oct 22, 10:34 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:

>>> The statement "I lack belief in a god"
>

>>It's too complex for simple minds like Calvin's.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:52:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

<snip blar blar>

I see what you mean Davej :-)

supern...@gmail.com

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:14:01 AM10/23/12

to

Funny, it says 'Atheism will become extinct' while our #s are the rise & christianity is waning.

Les

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:17:13 AM10/23/12

to

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:04:47 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:33:15 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>>they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>
>Yer we note that the claim is unsubstantiated and that we are simply
>expected to accept it just on the say so of the claimant
>
>> In other words, they have
>>no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>>on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
>>may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
>>to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
>>judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
>>brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
>>it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
>>belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
>>commitment or non-action concerning belief.
>
>Of course you can remain without belief. All you do is note that
>others tell us they believe there is a god yet offer no justification
>for accepting these beliefs ourselves. This does not mean we should
>them automatically start an opposite belief that is equally
>unjustifed. (As theists keep telling us!)
>
>For example here is what Matt Slick (another New theist) ) says:

Oops wrong attribution. It should read:
(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
as quoted by Calvin Ramsey
(these new theists are hard to tell apart)>

>
>>For the
>>assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>requires justification just as the latter does.

>
>And he is quite right (which probably makes him the first honest
>theist in history in that he admits his relgious beliefs are
>unjustfied.) What is the point of holding a position I cannot
>justify? That makes no sense so, I along with most atheists, hold
>neither position.
>
>Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold,
>since they cannot attack us for the postion we do hold without first
>justifying theirs. This is such an obvious thing they would do it but
>for one problem: They have no justification (as Slick admits)

That should be: 'As Craig admits'

Les

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:40:43 AM10/23/12

to

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:14:01 -0700 (PDT), supern...@gmail.com
wrote:

According to another poster, 'we are in crisis' and have lost count of
the number of times broiled chicken has told me I have been shattered
and not known it :-)

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:47:28 AM10/23/12

to

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:50:53 AM10/23/12

to

On 10/23/2012 5:04 AM, Les wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:33:15 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>
> Yer we note that the claim is unsubstantiated and that we are simply
> expected to accept it just on the say so of the claimant

There is no "we" here for you, Les, since you are not an atheist, but an
agnostic, i.e. "one without knowledge."

<smirk>

--
"Is English your First Language, Les?"

Tim

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:53:17 AM10/23/12

to

"Calvin Ramsey" wrote in message news:k65epd$je9$1...@dont-email.me...

The statement [blah blah blah]

--------

Run pussy run.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:57:46 AM10/23/12

to

On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:

>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.

Is English your First Language, Les?

Don't worry, Les. No one is "attacking" agnostics, with no beliefs.

You're less than nothing, as far as we're concerned.

Get over your self-centered self.

<smirk>

Catpain 'Merca

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 9:01:55 AM10/23/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6535g$2eg$2@dont-
email.me:

Calvin you rotting piece of vegetable matter, the flaws in your meandering
bloviations have already been demonstrated to you several times. Repeating
your sickly attempts merely demonstrates the paucity of your imagination.
Find a cornfield and stand in the middle of it, then wait for my call.

Catpain Merca
--
.

sbalneav

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 10:23:37 AM10/23/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>
>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>
> Is English your First Language, Les?

It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
"Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.

--
__ _ | Science is what we understand well enough to explain to
(_ |_) | a computer. Art is everything else.
__)|_) | -- Donald Knuth

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 10:56:01 AM10/23/12

to

On 10/23/2012 10:23 AM, sbalneav wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>>
>>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>>
>> Is English your First Language, Les?
>
> It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
> "Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.

Digging for scraps I see.

But now that I have your undivided attention, I'm still waiting for you
to tell me of one, just one, original thought that you have ever had in
your head. Remembering that for it to be an "original thought", you
would have to be the first person to have ever had that thought in your
head.

Then you can tell me why you so thoroughly enjoy being backed into
corners so much.

<smirk>

sbalneav

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 1:14:06 PM10/23/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 10:23 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>>>
>>> Is English your First Language, Les?
>>
>> It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
>> "Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.
>
> Digging for scraps I see.

Nope, just calling attention to the fact that, apart from making spelling
flames on Les, you got nothin'. But we knew that already. So I guess I'm just
stating the obvious. One of my flaws.

> But now that I have your undivided attention, I'm still waiting for you
> to tell me of one, just one, original thought that you have ever had in
> your head. Remembering that for it to be an "original thought", you
> would have to be the first person to have ever had that thought in your
> head.

You bet. I betcha I'm the first person ever to ever think of applying the nickname
"Xyafoopnargle:@" to you. Please note the colon and ampersand are silent.

Google provides at least a partial confirmation:

Showing results for Stoopnagle
No results found for Xyafoopnargle:@

If you need any other original thoughts, let me know. I can generate them
pretty much at will.

> Then you can tell me why you so thoroughly enjoy being backed into
> corners so much.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 1:55:02 PM10/23/12

to

On 10/23/2012 1:14 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 10:23 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>>>>
>>>> Is English your First Language, Les?
>>>
>>> It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
>>> "Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.

They may not have been necessary, but that doesn't make them illicit.

Besides, using "First" and "Language" together, in parallel with
"English", makes it appropriate to capitalize them.
E.g., First Lady, First Family, etc.

Is English your First Language, Scottie?

<smirk>

>> Digging for scraps I see.
>
> Nope, just calling attention to the fact that, apart from making spelling
> flames on Les, you got nothin'.

Well, let's see you *prove* it's a "fact".

I could use a little entertainment.

>> But now that I have your undivided attention, I'm still waiting for you
>> to tell me of one, just one, original thought that you have ever had in
>> your head. Remembering that for it to be an "original thought", you
>> would have to be the first person to have ever had that thought in your
>> head.
>
> You bet. I betcha I'm the first person ever to ever think of applying the nickname
> "Xyafoopnargle:@" to you. Please note the colon and ampersand are silent.

Oh, is that what you meant by "original thought"?

Well then, you were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

You see, I've got a few of them myself.

Now sit down, shut up, and don't come out of that corner.

<smirk>

sbalneav

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 2:13:12 PM10/23/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 1:14 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2012 10:23 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is English your First Language, Les?
>>>>
>>>> It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
>>>> "Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.
>
> They may not have been necessary, but that doesn't make them illicit.
>
> Besides, using "First" and "Language" together, in parallel with
> "English", makes it appropriate to capitalize them.
> E.g., First Lady, First Family, etc.

No, it doesn't. "first language" is a generic identifier.

> Is English your First Language, Scottie?

You're really stretching here.

<snip bullshit>

>> You bet. I betcha I'm the first person ever to ever think of applying the nickname
>> "Xyafoopnargle:@" to you. Please note the colon and ampersand are silent.
>
> Oh, is that what you meant by "original thought"?

It's a thought, isn't it? Or are you going to try and define what, exactly,
constitutes a "thought" now? *snicker*. I just love it when you lose, and then
frantically try to re-define words so that it seems that somehow, you didn't.
It just highlights the paucity of your intellectual honesty to your own
original thought-creation: the elect lurkers :)

> Well then, you were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.
>
> You see, I've got a few of them myself.
>
> Now sit down, shut up, and don't come out of that corner.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 2:33:04 PM10/23/12

to

On 10/23/2012 2:13 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 1:14 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2012 10:23 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is English your First Language, Les?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
>>>>> "Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.
>>
>> They may not have been necessary, but that doesn't make them illicit.
>>
>> Besides, using "First" and "Language" together, in parallel with
>> "English", makes it appropriate to capitalize them.
>> E.g., First Lady, First Family, etc.
>
> No, it doesn't. "first language" is a generic identifier.

Well, let's just say, I believe you're wrong.

I believe it's appropriate.

>
>> Is English your First Language, Scottie?
>
> You're really stretching here.

I don't think so.

>
> <snip bullshit>
>
>>> You bet. I betcha I'm the first person ever to ever think of applying the nickname
>>> "Xyafoopnargle:@" to you. Please note the colon and ampersand are silent.
>>
>> Oh, is that what you meant by "original thought"?

>> Well then, you were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.
>>
>> You see, I've got a few of them myself.
>>
>> Now sit down, shut up, and don't come out of that corner.
>
> Surrender accepted. Always fun to kick your sorry ass around alt.atheism,
> Xyafoopnargle:@.

And that's how I know that you know you've been beaten, when you start
in with that "surrender accepted" crap.

You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

Now sit down and shut up.

<smirk>

sbalneav

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 2:40:42 PM10/23/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 2:13 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2012 1:14 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2012 10:23 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is English your First Language, Les?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
>>>>>> "Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.
>>>
>>> They may not have been necessary, but that doesn't make them illicit.
>>>
>>> Besides, using "First" and "Language" together, in parallel with
>>> "English", makes it appropriate to capitalize them.
>>> E.g., First Lady, First Family, etc.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. "first language" is a generic identifier.
>
> Well, let's just say, I believe you're wrong.

Yeah. Yet another incorrect thing you believe in. Geez, you're credulous.
Credulous *and* ungrammatical. What a winning combination.

<snip more surrendering>

--
__ _ | A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
(_ |_) | -- Adlai Stevenson
__)|_) |

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 4:43:34 PM10/23/12

to

On 10/23/2012 2:40 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 2:13 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2012 1:14 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>> Calvin Ramsey<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2012 10:23 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>>> Calvin Ramsey<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2012 5:17 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thiest often attempt to attack us for us positions we do not hold.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is English your First Language, Les?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's obviously not yours, since the initial capitals in "First" and
>>>>>>> "Language" weren't necessary, as they're not proper adjectives or nouns.
>>>>
>>>> They may not have been necessary, but that doesn't make them illicit.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, using "First" and "Language" together, in parallel with
>>>> "English", makes it appropriate to capitalize them.
>>>> E.g., First Lady, First Family, etc.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. "first language" is a generic identifier.
>>
>> Well, let's just say, I believe you're wrong.
>
> Yeah. Yet another incorrect thing you believe in. Geez, you're credulous.
> Credulous *and* ungrammatical. What a winning combination.
>
> <snip more surrendering>

There you go again.
That's how I know you know you've been defeated.

And I also know that's your way of offering a surrender. But I have no
reason to quit now.

You accuse me of not having an original thought in my head, when, by
"original thought", you're talking about petty little, non-important,
insignificant ideas that everyone has. You were wrong, and you know it.

Surrender denied.

<smirk>

sbalneav

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:23:33 PM10/23/12

to

Please look up the word "hyperbole" in a dictionary, and get back to me, would
you, Captain Pedantic?

That's my last word on this, you're doing the worst possible thing you could do
as an usenet troll: bore the shit out of me.

Oh, and by way of clarification, since I've reduced you now to grammar trolling
and pedantic interpretation of common phrases, when I say "bore the shit out of
me", I don't mean that I'm actually defecating, I mean that you're just boring
me a lot. It's exactly the same thing as when I say you "don't have an
original thought in your head" in reference to your not actually advancing any
argument of your own, or putting an argument in your own words, but rather your
habit of simply posting, verbatim, what other people write.

I think I'll just ignore you for a while. You're kind of a one-trick-pony.
Oh, sorry, there I go, using metaphor again. What I mean is, you simply use
the same tactic over and over again, with no variation in your routine.

<snore>

--
__ _ | Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet
(_ |_) | voice at the end of the day saying, "I will try again
__)|_) | tomorrow." -- Mary Anne Radmacher

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 23, 2012, 5:35:26 PM10/23/12

to

You can try coming up with any kind of excuse for being wrong that you
want to.

The fact is you were, and still wrong, when you accuse me of not having
an original thought, when everybody has the kinds of original thoughts
you were talking about.

And you call me pedantic. Get real.

If you knew you were right you wouldn't be running away.

You are running away because you know you are wrong.

Surrender accepted.

<smirk>

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 7:02:44 PM10/25/12

to

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 7:40:27 PM10/25/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6cgeb$n37$2@dont-
email.me:

> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.

In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
which there is zero evidence.

Contrarily, it is impossible by using logic to prove the non-existance of
anything.

Of course, you would prefer that I have the burden of formulating an
impossible proof, instead of yourself having the burden of proving
something which has a vanishingly small probability.

> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
> world who believe in God (or a god) than don't,

For sure, there are none who go door to door trying to convert people to
atheism.

And what, pray tell, is the difference between "God" and "a god"? Isn't
God, in fact, a god?

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Syd Maniac

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 7:42:43 PM10/25/12

to

Calvin Ramsey wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god"

What our actual position is, repeat lying spammer.

--
PDW

Check out my comic blogs:

http://theincognitomultiverse.blogspot.com/

http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/

http://warintime.blogspot.com/

http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/

http://thearrakiscycle.blogspot.com/

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 8:19:48 PM10/25/12

to

Syd Maniac <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:k6cipj$38g$1
@news.albasani.net:

> Check out my comic blogs:

The text is too small. When I enlarge the graphics, the text is still
illegible. Perhaps you could convert them to SVG objects.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 8:25:38 PM10/25/12

to

On 10/25/2012 7:40 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6cgeb$n37$2@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
>> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
>
> In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
> which there is zero evidence.

Then why not simply believe there is no God?

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 9:00:32 PM10/25/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6cl9q$m2e$1@dont-
email.me:

>> In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
>> which there is zero evidence.
>
> Then why not simply believe there is no God?

Why do you think it is simpler?

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 9:15:35 PM10/25/12

to

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
<Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:

>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6cl9q$m2e$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>
>>> In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
>>> which there is zero evidence.
>>
>> Then why not simply believe there is no God?
>
>Why do you think it is simpler?

Somebody remind the pig-ignorant, nasty, in-your-face moron that
believing something is an action, and tat not believing something is
the absence of that action.

We don't waste time and effort over something as irrelevant as the
hypothetical object of somebody else's religious belief.

Which has been explained over and over again to this psychopath.

John Locke

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 9:45:24 PM10/25/12

to

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:02:44 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

> [snip] "I lack belief in a god" [snip]
>
...now you're getting the hang of it. Just keep repeating that to
yourself everyday until the god monster in your head fades away.

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 10:09:22 PM10/25/12

to

Christopher A. Lee <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:vsoj885p25q971n9e...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
> <Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:
>
>>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in
>>news:k6cl9q$m2e$1@dont- email.me:
>>
>>
>>>> In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in
>>>> something for which there is zero evidence.
>>>
>>> Then why not simply believe there is no God?
>>
>>Why do you think it is simpler?
>
> Somebody remind the pig-ignorant, nasty, in-your-face moron that
> believing something is an action, and tat not believing something is
> the absence of that action.
>

I agree 100% with your point. But I was endeavouring to explain it a bit
more politely. Who knows, perhaps that is all he needs to understand what
we see as simple logic. Remember, his worldview is so constrained by his
belief in his god that he cannot discuss it using the same type of logical
reasoning we use with other beliefs.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Oct 25, 2012, 10:23:14 PM10/25/12

to

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:09:22 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy

<Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:vsoj885p25q971n9e...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
>> <Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in
>>>news:k6cl9q$m2e$1@dont- email.me:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in
>>>>> something for which there is zero evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Then why not simply believe there is no God?
>>>
>>>Why do you think it is simpler?
>>
>> Somebody remind the pig-ignorant, nasty, in-your-face moron that
>> believing something is an action, and tat not believing something is
>> the absence of that action.
>
>I agree 100% with your point. But I was endeavouring to explain it a bit
>more politely. Who knows, perhaps that is all he needs to understand what
>we see as simple logic. Remember, his worldview is so constrained by his
>belief in his god that he cannot discuss it using the same type of logical
>reasoning we use with other beliefs.

He's long since lost the right to expect the very respect he has never
shown us.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 2:01:14 AM10/26/12

to

You have a false impression of who God is.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 2:01:17 AM10/26/12

to

On 10/25/2012 9:00 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6cl9q$m2e$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>
>>> In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
>>> which there is zero evidence.
>>
>> Then why not simply believe there is no God?
>
> Why do you think it is simpler?

I never said it was simpler, but I suppose you're right. It would be
simpler.

You've already confessed to believing that there is zero evidence for
God's existence.

The natural result of having that belief would then be to simply believe
there is zero, or no, God.

But instead, you go out of your way to avoid having that belief, to
avoid having to defend it.

(Note: I'm not at all trying to get you to change what you already
believe, or to some extent see the logic behind my perspective. I know
that having either one of those two events occurring is an
impossibility. See "Predestination". I'm merely telling you what
millions of other people see you doing, just so you won't get the false
sense of "getting over" on anyone. You're not.)

Les

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 5:23:54 AM10/26/12

to

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
<Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:

>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6cgeb$n37$2@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
>> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
>
>In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
>which there is zero evidence.

Which is of course why they have to try and misrepresent what we
really are (build strawmen) so they do have something to attack.

Plus of course it distracts attention from their own failure to
jusitfy their theism something they have had 2000 years to do
and failed.

This is, in essence, what New Theism is, a switch
from trying to justify their position (which they have failed
to do) to attacking the postion of those who do no share their
beliefs.

The age when they can bully and cajole people into religious belief
is now gone, the age of justification is well and truly here.

>Contrarily, it is impossible by using logic to prove the non-existance of
>anything.
>
>Of course, you would prefer that I have the burden of formulating an
>impossible proof, instead of yourself having the burden of proving
>something which has a vanishingly small probability.

Exactly, hence this exercise in disinformation by New Theism

>> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
>> world who believe in God (or a god) than don't,
>
>For sure, there are none who go door to door trying to convert people to
>atheism.

Nor would we want to. What others choose to believe is no business of
ours.

Of course when these New Theists attempt to misrepresent us we have
the right to correct them so that people can be properly informed what
being without religious belief (atheist) means. It is important that
people be able to make their own informed choices when considering
their relgious beliefs and that even theists like William Craig now
admit needs justification (see quote below).

>And what, pray tell, is the difference between "God" and "a god"? Isn't
>God, in fact, a god?

Yep and just one of thousands of such claims none of them
distinquishable from the other in terms of validity.

Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

Les

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 5:30:38 AM10/26/12

to

"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

Tha's why

Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Christanity? Just say NO!

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 8:50:13 AM10/26/12

to

On 10/26/2012 5:30 AM, Les wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:25:38 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/2012 7:40 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6cgeb$n37$2@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
>>>> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
>>> which there is zero evidence.
>>
>> Then why not simply believe there is no God?
>

> "For the assertion that ï¿½There is no Godï¿½ is just as much a claim to
> knowledge as is the assertion that ï¿½There is a God.ï¿½ Therefore, the

> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

My point, exactly.

Thanks, Les.

<smirk>

--

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 9:00:21 AM10/26/12

to

On 10/26/2012 5:23 AM, Les wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
> <Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:

[snip a lot of wishful thinking]

>> And what, pray tell, is the difference between "God" and "a god"? Isn't
>> God, in fact, a god?
>
> Yep and just one of thousands of such claims none of them
> distinquishable from the other in terms of validity.

Unless you're one of the chosen elect, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God.

Without the Holy Spirit, it's much easier for you to believe a lie than
it is for you to believe the truth.

"We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from
God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the
spirit of error."
--1 John 4:6 (ESV)

"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear
to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to
do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does
not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies,
he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of
lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Whoever is of
God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that
you are not of God."
--John 8:43-45, 47 (ESV)

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 11:06:17 AM10/26/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in

news:k6d90e$8a2$2...@dont-email.me:

> The natural result of having that belief would then
> be to simply believe there is zero, or no, God.

No. You will note that I also said in my original message "vanishingly
small probability".

Perhaps there might be entities that are alive via the use of entropy
reveral systems that are unknown to us. Science fiction is full of examples
of such possible beings. I don't put much probability on any of them
existing. Your god is in the same category.

> But instead, you go out of your way to avoid having that belief,

You are the one performing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 11:06:37 AM10/26/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in

news:k6d90e$8a2$2...@dont-email.me:

> The natural result of having that belief would then
> be to simply believe there is zero, or no, God.

No. You will note that I also said in my original message "vanishingly
small probability".

Perhaps there might be entities that are alive via the use of entropy
reveral systems that are unknown to us. Science fiction is full of examples
of such possible beings. I don't put much probability on any of them
existing. Your god is in the same category.

> But instead, you go out of your way to avoid having that belief,

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 12:06:00 PM10/26/12

to

On 10/26/2012 11:06 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:

> Your god is .....

That's all anybody needs to read from you to know what your beliefs
really are.

You can try hiding it, but the truth will come oozing out through the
cracks.

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 4:28:00 PM10/26/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6ecd9$e63$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 10/26/2012 11:06 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>
>> Your god is .....
>
> That's all anybody needs to read from you to know what your beliefs
> really are.

Why do you explain it for those "not in the know"?

>
> You can try hiding it, but the truth will come oozing out through the
> cracks.

Lay it on me!

>
> (Note: I'm not at all trying to get you to change what you already
> believe, or to some extent see the logic behind my perspective. I know
> that having either one of those two events occurring is an
> impossibility.

What two events? Please enumerate them.

>See "Predestination". I'm merely telling you what
> millions of other people see you doing,

Okay. Please be the spokesman for these millions of your hidden
supporters

> just so you won't get the false
> sense of "getting over" on anyone. You're not.)

and tell me what you mean.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 4:33:05 PM10/26/12

to

On 10/26/2012 4:28 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6ecd9$e63$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 10/26/2012 11:06 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>>
>>> Your god is .....
>>
>> That's all anybody needs to read from you to know what your beliefs
>> really are.
>
> Why do you explain it for those "not in the know"?

Why do you not believe there is no God?

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 4:45:12 PM10/26/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6es21$jji$1@dont-
email.me:

> Why do you not believe there is no God?

Because it is impossible to prove *anything* does not exist.

This seems to be a mental stumbling block for you.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 4:52:56 PM10/26/12

to

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:45:12 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
<Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:

>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6es21$jji$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> Why do you not believe there is no God?
>
>Because it is impossible to prove *anything* does not exist.
>
>This seems to be a mental stumbling block for you.

Because it's not in our worldview as anything more than somebody
else's wacky religious belief, and we don't spend any time or effort
performing the action of believing something irrelevant doesn't exist.

Which has been explained to the in-your-face, aggressively stupid,
nasty borderline psychopath many times.

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 5:02:33 PM10/26/12

to

On Oct 25, 8:19 pm, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
> Syd Maniac <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:k6cipj$38g$1

You mean on the comics?

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 5:02:59 PM10/26/12

to

On Oct 25, 8:25 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 7:40 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>

> > Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote innews:k6cgeb$n37$2@dont-

> > email.me:
>
> >> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
> >> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
>
> > In my opinion, I don't need to defend my lack of belief in something for
> > which there is zero evidence.
>
> Then why not simply believe there is no God?

Because no evidence FOR the existence is there.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 5:15:17 PM10/26/12

to

On 10/26/2012 4:45 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:

> Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>> Why do you not believe there is no God?
>
> Because it is impossible to prove *anything* does not exist.

I'm not asking you to prove there is no God.

Is English your First Language?

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 5:18:31 PM10/26/12

to

On 10/26/2012 4:52 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:45:12 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
> <Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote:
>
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6es21$jji$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> Why do you not believe there is no God?
>>
>> Because it is impossible to prove *anything* does not exist.
>>
>> This seems to be a mental stumbling block for you.
>
> Because it's not in our worldview as anything more than somebody
> else's wacky religious belief, and we don't spend any time or effort
> performing the action of believing something irrelevant doesn't exist.

How much effort did it take for you to believe you were awake after you
woke up this morning?

Why do you always have to lie?

Andy W

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 6:18:54 PM10/26/12

to

On Oct 23, 10:35 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 5:23 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>> <snip more surrendering>
>
> >> There you go again.
> >> That's how I know you know you've been defeated.
>
> >> And I also know that's your way of offering a surrender. But I have no
> >> reason to quit now.
>
> >> You accuse me of not having an original thought in my head, when, by
> >> "original thought", you're talking about petty little, non-important,
> >> insignificant ideas that everyone has. You were wrong, and you know it.
>
> The fact is you were, and still wrong, when you accuse me of not having
> an original thought, when everybody has the kinds of original thoughts
> you were talking about.
>
> And you call me pedantic. Get real.
>
> If you knew you were right you wouldn't be running away.
>
> You are running away because you know you are wrong.
>
> Surrender accepted.

OK guys I've been in touch with the EAC procurement department and
there should be a new consignment of Calvin-strength irony meters in
by Monday, so if you just lost yours you'll have to hold out until
then.

Andy

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 6:22:53 PM10/26/12

to

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:d6bef05e-a84a-4308-9727-
0a15d7...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

> You mean on the comics?

Yes. Some captions can be read, but some are completely illegible. How easy
depends on which comic, and the text size within the caption. My screen is
1280x1024. When I use "Ctl+" to enlarge, the pixels expand, but the text is
still difficult to read. (i.e. it is not a visual problem on my part.)

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 6:25:08 PM10/26/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6euh6$4kh$1@dont-
email.me:

> I'm not asking you to prove there is no God.

I didn't say you asked for a proof.

> Is English your First Language?

Yes.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 11:12:18 PM10/26/12

to

On 10/26/2012 6:25 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6euh6$4kh$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> I'm not asking you to prove there is no God.
>
> I didn't say you asked for a proof.
>

In effect, you did.

You can try hiding it, but the truth will always come oozing out through
the cracks.

Think about what you want to ask me, then wait three years, then come
back and ask me your question. I'll still be here.

(Note: I'm not at all trying to get you to change what you already
believe, or to some extent see the logic behind my perspective. I know
that having either one of those two events occurring is an

impossibility. See "Predestination". I'm merely telling you what
millions of other people see you doing, just so you won't get the false

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 11:24:05 PM10/26/12

to

On Oct 26, 5:18 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 4:52 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:45:12 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy

> > <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig> wrote:
>
> >> Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote innews:k6es21$jji$1@dont-

> >> email.me:
>
> >>> Why do you not believe there is no God?
>
> >> Because it is impossible to prove *anything* does not exist.
>
> >> This seems to be a mental stumbling block for you.
>
> > Because it's not in our worldview as anything more than somebody
> > else's wacky religious belief, and we don't spend any time or effort
> > performing the action of believing something irrelevant doesn't exist.
>
> How much effort did it take for you to believe you were awake after you
> woke up this morning?
>
> Why do you always have to lie?

He's not. You are.

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 11:24:49 PM10/26/12

to

On Oct 26, 6:22 pm, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
> "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:d6bef05e-a84a-4308-9727-
> 0a15d7cf2...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

>
> > You mean on the comics?
>
> Yes. Some captions can be read, but some are completely illegible. How easy
> depends on which comic, and the text size within the caption. My screen is
> 1280x1024. When I use "Ctl+" to enlarge, the pixels expand, but the text is
> still difficult to read. (i.e. it is not a visual problem on my part.)
>
> --http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Hmmm... Ok, I'll look into it.

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 26, 2012, 11:25:06 PM10/26/12

to

On Oct 26, 11:12 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 6:25 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>

> > Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote innews:k6euh6$4kh$1@dont-

> > email.me:
>
> >> I'm not asking you to prove there is no God.
>
> > I didn't say you asked for a proof.
>
> In effect, you did.
>

Nope.

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 12:16:40 AM10/27/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6fjeh$ilm$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 10/26/2012 6:25 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6euh6$4kh$1@dont-
>> email.me:

> In effect, you did.

No. I said I don't beleive it (there is no god) because it cannot be
proved.

How does this mean I am asking you for a proof?

Is English *your* first language? What level of formal education did you
attain? It does not look like formal logic was included in your studies.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 12:27:33 AM10/27/12

to

On 10/27/2012 12:16 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6fjeh$ilm$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 10/26/2012 6:25 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:

>>> Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>> In effect, you did.
>
> No. I said I don't beleive it (there is no god) because it cannot be
> proved.

No. That is *not* what you said.

But anyway, you believed there was "zero evidence" for God, and that
cannot be proven.

You're full of self-contradictions.

You can try hiding it, but the truth will always come oozing out through
the cracks.

Think about what you want to ask me, wait three years, then come back

John Locke

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 1:00:57 AM10/27/12

to

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:01:14 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 10/25/2012 9:45 PM, John Locke wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:02:44 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [snip] "I lack belief in a god" [snip]
>>>
>> ...now you're getting the hang of it. Just keep repeating that to
>> yourself everyday until the god monster in your head fades away.
>
>You have a false impression of who God is.
>
...I assume you mean your imaginary god. If it's the one from the
Bible, then the "impression" I get is that the blasted thing is a
genocidal maniac. Damn good thing it's just a figment of your
imagination else you'd be royally screwed.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 1:07:04 AM10/27/12

to

And it's much easier for you to believe a lie about God than to believe
the truth about him.

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's

desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he

speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

--John 8:44 (ESV)

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not
hear them is that you are not of God."

--John 8:47 (ESV)

Mike Duffy

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 10:28:23 AM10/27/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6fnrj$4mq$1@dont-
email.me:

>
> You can try hiding it, but the truth will always come
> oozing out through the cracks.
>
> Think about what you want to ask me, wait three years, then come back
> and ask me your question. I'll still be here.
>
> (Note: I'm not at all trying to get you to change what you already
> believe, or to some extent see the logic behind my perspective. I know
> that having either one of those two events occurring is an
> impossibility. See "Predestination". I'm merely telling you what

No. You're just using a boilerplate response when you want to run away from
a spanking. Since you have asked me not to respond to you for a few years,
I have obliged by taking the extraordinary step of doubling the number of
entries in my killfile.

Say "hi" to Broiljab.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 1:31:35 PM10/27/12

to

On 10/27/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey<calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6fnrj$4mq$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>>
>> You can try hiding it, but the truth will always come
>> oozing out through the cracks.
>>
>> Think about what you want to ask me, wait three years, then come back
>> and ask me your question. I'll still be here.
>>
>> (Note: I'm not at all trying to get you to change what you already
>> believe, or to some extent see the logic behind my perspective. I know
>> that having either one of those two events occurring is an
>> impossibility. See "Predestination". I'm merely telling you what
>

> No. [snip empty and hollow fragments of English phrases]

It does me good to see how you snipped the parts about you lying and
contradicting yourself.

Rather than stay and defend what you wrote you flee in a hasty retreat,
which only shows me how wrong you know you are.

Like I said, the truth will always come oozing out through the cracks.

You can't hide it from me. I'll always find a way of squeezing it out of
you.

Got it?

You're welcome.

<smirk>

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 1:43:56 PM10/27/12

to

On Oct 27, 1:31 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Calvin Ramsey<calvinlram...@live.com> wrote innews:k6fnrj$4mq$1@dont-

> > email.me:
>
> >> You can try hiding it, but the truth will always come
> >> oozing out through the cracks.
>
> >> Think about what you want to ask me, wait three years, then come back
> >> and ask me your question. I'll still be here.
>
> >> (Note: I'm not at all trying to get you to change what you already
> >> believe, or to some extent see the logic behind my perspective. I know
> >> that having either one of those two events occurring is an
> >> impossibility. See "Predestination". I'm merely telling you what
>
> > No. [snip empty and hollow fragments of English phrases]
>
>
>

> Like I said, the truth will always come oozing out through the cracks.
>

Oh, you mean the truth that he doesn't feel like sitting here and
continueng to read your nasty, arrogant lies, smirking asshole?

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 27, 2012, 1:47:20 PM10/27/12

to

Oh, I should point out something else, too.
Some of those are smaller files, while the more recent are larger
files. I assume it's the less recent ones that are giving you
trouble..?

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 2:00:44 AM10/28/12

to

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid

facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see,
if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. If the
majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
known and atheism will become extinct.

(by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")

Les

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 4:50:38 AM10/28/12

to

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:00:44 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
>no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue.

Yer we note that the claim is unsubstantiated and that we are simply
expected to accept it just on the say so of the claimant

> In other words, they have
>no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
>may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
>to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
>judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
>brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
>it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
>belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
>commitment or non-action concerning belief.

Of course you can remain without belief. All you do is note that
others tell us they believe there is a god yet offer no justification
for accepting these beliefs ourselves. This does not mean we should
them automatically start an opposite belief that is equally
unjustifed. (As theists keep telling us!)

For example here is what - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
another New theist says:

>For the
>assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does.

And he is quite right (which probably makes him the first honest
theist in history in that he admits his relgious beliefs are
unjustfied.) What is the point of holding a position I cannot
justify? That makes no sense so, I along with most non-theists
(atheists), hold neither position.

It is good to know he has recognised this as many old theists
do not seem to understand but I note he has made no attempt to
offer that justification he tells us he needs to make and instead
has choose to attack us fo a postion we do not hold

This is quite a common tactic for theists new or old since they cannot
attack us for the postion we do hold without first justifying theirs.
This is such an obvious thing they would do it but for one problem:
They have no justification (As Craig admits)

In other words they cannot show that their religious beliefs are other
than fantasy plucked out of ignorance and superstition.

Which more than justifies our absence of relgious beliefs. Having
lomg ago realised that their religion is not justified and decided not
to adopt I now give it no further consideration. It is just somebody
elses relgious belief.

Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 7:00:48 AM10/28/12

to

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

Les

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 9:57:14 AM10/28/12

to

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:00:48 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
>no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue.

>(by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")

Absolutely.

As Willaim Craig says below we have no grounds for any god beliefs
they are just somebody elses relgion and of no interest

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 9:58:42 AM10/28/12

to

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

hypatiab7

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 12:13:52 PM10/28/12

to

On Friday, October 26, 2012 2:01:50 AM UTC-4, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 9:45 PM, John Locke wrote:

> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:02:44 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> > <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> [snip] "I lack belief in a god" [snip]
>
> > ...now you're getting the hang of it. Just keep repeating that to
> > yourself everyday until the god monster in your head fades away.
>
> You have a false impression of who God is.

How can you have any 'impression' of something that doesn't exist? And,
you have yet to provide any evidence that it does. All you do is quote from nonsense written by other human beings who are just as delusional as you are.
And, don't tell us that any of them got their nonsense directly from your
non-existent, non-evident god, either. Won't work.

Syd M.

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 12:17:07 PM10/28/12

to

On Oct 28, 9:58 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is still our position.

So choke on it, smirking spammer ass.

hypatiab7

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 12:35:10 PM10/28/12

to

On Friday, October 26, 2012 4:33:05 PM UTC-4, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 4:28 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> > Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k6ecd9$e63$1@dont-
> > email.me:
>
> >> On 10/26/2012 11:06 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>
> >>> Your god is .....
>
> >> That's all anybody needs to read from you to know what your beliefs
> >> really are.
>
> > Why do you explain it for those "not in the know"?

>
> Why do you not believe there is no God?

Some atheists don't believe in any kind of god (including your mad
alien child with a chemistry set)and others lack belief in any kind
of god (including your mad alien child with a chemistry set). This
has been explained to you over a hundred times. So, either you are
outright stupid or just trying to be annoying (childish). I vote for
both, in your case.

The answer to your question, as you've also been told over a hundred
times, is lack of evidence. You have none. Faith doesn't count, since
it is individual and has no evidence to back it up. Plus, anyone who
does not believe there is no god is not an atheist. Stop your doubly
stupid word games.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 12:56:19 PM10/28/12

to

On 10/28/2012 12:13 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:

> Calvin Ramsey wrote:

>> You have a false impression of who God is.
>
> How can you have any 'impression' of something that doesn't exist?

But I know you really do have the (unspoken) belief that he does exist.
Otherwise, you would not be here now, engaging in this post.
You're here now, engaging in this post to try one more time at convincing
yourself that he really doesn't exist, so you won't have to give an account
of yourself to him when you die.

I know this is true because he implanted the knowledge of himself into
every conscious human being. There's no escaping it. You know he exists,
but you don't want to know that he really does exist, and you really are
going to have to give an account of yourself to when you die.

> And, you have yet to provide any evidence that it does.

That's just another attempt at convincing yourself that he really
doesn't exist. You know there is no empirical evidence for the
existence of God. But you'll try anything to make that nagging
knowledge of him go away.

Nice try, but you're only fooling yourself, again.

Irreverend Dave

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 1:48:48 PM10/28/12

to

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

So do you believe pink unicorns Calvin? If not, why not?

--
"Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not a
science. Reason and religion are thus at odds with each other."
- William Lane Craig

Les

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 2:36:35 PM10/28/12

to

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:56:19 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 10/28/2012 12:13 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>>> You have a false impression of who God is.
>>
>> How can you have any 'impression' of something that doesn't exist?
>
>But I know you really do have the (unspoken) belief that he does exist.
>Otherwise, you would not be here now, engaging in this post.

>You're here now, engaging in this post to try one more time at convincing
>yourself that he really doesn't exist, so you won't have to give an account
>of yourself to him when you die.

>I know this is true because he implanted the knowledge of himself into
>every conscious human being. There's no escaping it. You know he exists,
>but you don't want to know that he really does exist, and you really are
>going to have to give an account of yourself to when you die.

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to
adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to
make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it
softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal.
We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter.
We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal
clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that
you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your
television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You
are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the
inner mind to � The Outer Limits

>
>> And, you have yet to provide any evidence that it does.
>
>That's just another attempt at convincing yourself that he really
>doesn't exist. You know there is no empirical evidence for the
>existence of God. But you'll try anything to make that nagging
>knowledge of him go away.
>
>Nice try, but you're only fooling yourself, again.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 3:07:32 PM10/28/12

to

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:36:35 +0000, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:56:19 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/28/2012 12:13 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>
>>>> You have a false impression of who God is.
>>>
>>> How can you have any 'impression' of something that doesn't exist?
>>
>>But I know you really do have the (unspoken) belief that he does exist.
>>Otherwise, you would not be here now, engaging in this post.

Ramsey just can't stoop lying.

He arrogantly, nastily tells us what is in our own minds and we
correct him.

That's why we "engage this post".

>>You're here now, engaging in this post to try one more time at convincing
>>yourself that he really doesn't exist, so you won't have to give an account
>>of yourself to him when you die.

More lies.

>>I know this is true because he implanted the knowledge of himself into
>>every conscious human being. There's no escaping it. You know he exists,
>>but you don't want to know that he really does exist, and you really are
>>going to have to give an account of yourself to when you die.

More lies.

>There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to
>adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to
>make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it
>softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal.
>We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter.
>We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal
>clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that
>you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your
>television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You
>are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the
>inner mind to — The Outer Limits

He's seriously mentally ill.

If it were anything but religion he's be in the psych ward.

>>> And, you have yet to provide any evidence that it does.
>>
>>That's just another attempt at convincing yourself that he really
>>doesn't exist. You know there is no empirical evidence for the
>>existence of God. But you'll try anything to make that nagging
>>knowledge of him go away.

More lies.

>>Nice try, but you're only fooling yourself, again.

He can't stop lying about us, to us.

Calvin Ramsey

unread,

Oct 28, 2012, 3:26:52 PM10/28/12

to

On 10/28/2012 3:07 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:36:35 +0000, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:56:19 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2012 12:13 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
>>>> Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You have a false impression of who God is.
>>>>
>>>> How can you have any 'impression' of something that doesn't exist?
>>>
>>> But I know you really do have the (unspoken) belief that he does exist.
>>> Otherwise, you would not be here now, engaging in this post.
>
> Ramsey just can't stoop lying.