Table of Contents
|
||||||||||
It has become clear and apparent that you you are a mastermind at twisting
words and misinforming others on the context of meanings. I know, I
know...you said that you go to great lengths to ensure that this does not
happen, but I assure you that you are failing miserably. Your claim is that
you are a free thinker (Websters: One who has rejected authority and dogma,
especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and
speculation)? Is this correct? Your position on things would make one think
the term "freethinker" is an oxi-moron. Do you know what oxymoron means?
I'll tell you according to websters:
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are
combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.
You continually reject simple logic (not only biblical logic, but everyday
simple logic that we all have to deal with to exist) your reactions when
tend to make one believe that you are incapable of reason. I understand you
have your viewpoints just as the next athiest would (and likely yours and
his are very different as well), but i'm talking about simple logic that a
two year old can understand.
Mark here} So far there's not a whole lot worth responding to here. It's just the usual playground tactics of name calling that Christians always seem to resort to. So.... I'm a poo-poo head. How does THAT, even if true, impact my arguments???
I read your article entitled "How To Convert an Athiest."
This is proof on
just how materialistic you are. For example, If you were blind, you would
try to convince me that color does not exist because you can't see it. As
far as I know, God or no God, nothing exists because you, Mark Smith, says
it exists. The fact is everything you have come to love and mostly hate in
this life, came about through supernatural means. What does supernatural
mean? Here is the definition according to Webster:
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
You said in your essay, "...Where does it say that he must be invisible to
all of our scientific instruments, and all of our human senses?"
Mark here} Has JB even STARTED to deal with ANY of my actual arguments yet? Of course not. That would require thinking- something most Christians haven't practiced in years. As to me being "materialistic", uhhh, like DUHHHH- it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that us Atheists don't believe in "spiritual" mumbo jumbo, does it???
Is there any human senses or scientific instruments that can detect
supernatural forces? If so why don't athiests use this tool to disprove
God? I'll tell you why, because even if you could come up with such a
gadget, arguments would come up as to it's authenticity. How would you
calibrate such an instrument? What if God is real? Athiests would
become
extinct, even before judgement day.
You are given this life to make the choice and demonstrate your faith in
God. If God forced you to love him, how could you have faith? If God
were
among us as he was in the garden would we have increased faith? That's
debatable. Jesus came and proclaimed who He was and who sent him...look
what we did to him. I am not convinced, given free will, you would have
more faith in God.
God gave every human being the right to have faith in Him. He does not
interfere with your will. You have chosen not to believe and so has the
rest of the world in your estimation, but this does not disprove his
existence. As I recall, God detroyed all of humanity by flood sparing one
family because they had faith in God. I'm not mathmatician, but I'm
willing
to go out on a limb and say that this family made up less than 1% of all
humanity. That would mean 99% of the people were athiests, non-believers,
fallen away (as you are I recall), paganists, etc, etc, etc. I guess the
bottom line is that you don't have to believe now, but you will one day.
"And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17).
Mark here} JB just can't resist inserting a commercial for his religion and his gods. Does JB really think that I, having spent TWENTY YEARS as a Christian, and more that TEN YEARS as an Atheists, does JB really think that I've never heard this information before??? But again, I forgot- Christians are a bit rusty when it comes to THINKING.
I'll have to agree with you on some points. It is not right that the
church
has split into many different beliefs and docterines (other than the Bible).
"There is one Body, one Spirit, just as you were all called into one and
the
same Hope ... There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one God Who is
Father of all, through all and within all." Ephesians 4:4
It isn't right to force feed the Gospel like you have indicated. Being a
Christian is a personal choice and nobody has a say in it but you, just like
you choose to be an athiest.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart
out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say
unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in
the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matthew 10:15)
But having said this doesn't disredit Christianity because these were all
human choices. God has not changed his mind or his word. For those
who
choose to alter God's word will be held accountable.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this
book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from
the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of
the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
Love in Christ,
JB Bennett
Mark here} Well, here we are at the end of JB's email, and JB totally forgot to deal with ANY of my arguments in the essay. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to remain an unbeliever!
Subject: Challenge met...
Date: 10/8/2004 11:26:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Hey Blondie,
First off, this bet flies in the face of logic (and
I'm willing to bet you don't see that... if you don't
then I win the bet... if you do, then why make this
"miracle" bet in the first place... either way I win).
This is like saying "give me $5,000,000 to show me
that you exist. What, you don't have $5,000,000? Well,
then you don't exist." Or it's just as lame as asking
God to give you no-sign as a sign that He exists -
"Welp, He exists then."
Mark here} Huh??? If I had a clue as to what this babble was trying to communicate, maybe I could respond. As it is, he needs to sober up and re-email me in the future.
Second off, Elijah knew that God existed even before
God sent fire down.
Mark here} The skeptics didn't.
Third off, it doesn't matter if God zaps you with
fire; that will not necessarily convert you.
Mark here} It wouldn't be to convert ME. Maybe you should read the article before mouthing off, you little republican. I would be DEAD- something I'm willing to risk (and you're not) to disprove your illusions.
There
were many times in the Bible where non-Christians were
exposed to miracles (even more astounding than being
zapped with fire) still they did not convert (look up
Exodus).
Mark here} And there are many times where I've seen CHRISTIANS exposed to MASSIVE amounts of evidence and they STILL didn't deconvert. And that's why we would have signed CONTRACTS drawn up beforehand, and lawyers to enforce them, to keep EVERYBODY honest.
Besides, what's to stop an atheist by
describing the event as pure coincidence?
On the other hand, I'm willing to bet you that you
will eventually be zapped with fire... in hell (well,
unless you convert before then). Would you like to
take me up on that bet? Personally, I hope I lose
because I do pray for your conversion and release from
the fideism of atheistic philosophy you exhibit. How
about it?
Yours,
Frank
PS It would be very very helpful if you tell me about
these bets or when you respond because you never seem
to give me a personal reply. And seeing how you think
I'm Shirley you could have at least sent her a reply
where she could then forward it to me. You could have
told Corey too. I never knew about this bet.
PPS As I'm writing Contra Smith will be up and running
soon. Don't worry, unlike you, I will tell you when I
have it up :o)
Mark here} Please, let all notice: When "Frank" is all said and done, he STILL hasn't said YES to my bet! Why, if he's soooo sure he's right??? It's because deep in his heart he knows his religion is all BS. I am willing to BET MY LIFE, he won't even bet his religion.
Subject: Your responses to the responses to "How To Prove The Existence of
God"
Date: 1/10/2005 7:22:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
First of all, I would like to note that I am not challenging anything
in your essay; neither am I Christian or Atheist; I'm challenging your
responses to the two emails challenging your essay. Just so that's
clear.
In response to the first email, you wrote:
" So far there's not a whole lot worth responding to here. It's just
the usual playground tactics of name calling that Christians always
seem to resort to. "
A bit later, you wrote the following:
"Has JB even STARTED to deal with ANY of my actual arguments yet? Of
course not. That would require thinking- something most Christians
haven't practiced in years. As to me being "materialistic", uhhh, like
DUHHHH- it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that us
Atheists don't believe in "spiritual" mumbo jumbo, does it???"
And again:
"Does JB really think that I, having spent TWENTY YEARS as a
Christian, and more that TEN YEARS as an Atheists, does JB really
think that I've never heard this information before??? But again, I
forgot- Christians are a bit rusty when it comes to THINKING."
The latter two comments bear some resemblance to the "usual playground
tactics of name calling" previously referred to. First you insult the
Christians by claiming they "always seem to resort to" name-calling
and "playground tactics", then you state "That would require thinking-
something most Christians haven't practiced in years" and "Christians
are a bit rusty when it comes to THINKING". I think that calling
someone dumb, unable to think, mindless, is about as
childish as one
can get. Mind, you never said /you/ never resorted to playground
tactics--so why am I complaining?
Mark here} Christians who email me believe in the precept "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Therefore the way they "do unto others" must be the way they'd want others to "do unto them". (See: Do Unto Others ) I am only giving them what they want, so... why are you complaining???
As to criticizing me for being "childish" let's see if any xtians are willing to publicly CONDEMN Jesus' advice that ye must become as a child. I think they won't, for I often experience xtians knocking me for doing x while ignoring knocking Jesus for doing the same (see: "Why Are You So Angry?" in my Answering Christian Stock Arguments ). For example, it's OK for Jesus to have gotten pissed (beating the money changers with whips) but not me. The old "teflon god" syndrome- nothing BAD their gods do is REALLY bad- it's only bad if YOU, Mr. Atheist, do it.
On to the second email:
"It wouldn't be to convert ME. Maybe you should read the article
before mouthing off, you little republican. I would be DEAD- something
I'm willing to risk (and you're not) to disprove your illusions."
Again with the insults. Have
you ever wondered if common courtesy
would make people a bit more receptive? (Not that I'm very much more
courteous than you were.)
Mark here} Insults? You want insults??? How about the whole 23rd chapter of The Gospel of Matthew??? How about where Elijah says God is stuck on the toilet and can't come to the rescue??? (No, it wasn't BIBLEgod, but it was SOMEBODY'S god- so where was the "respect" there, huh?). IF insults are WRONG, then JESUS WAS WRONG. I'm only following the wonderful blessed example of the good Lord.
" Please, let all notice: When "Frank" is all said and done, he
STILL hasn't said YES to my bet! Why, if he's soooo sure he's right???
It's because deep in his heart he knows his religion is all BS. I am
willing to BET MY LIFE, he won't even bet his religion."
This is a slightly more subtle insult--that
Christians can't even find
the faith to believe in their own religion (or did I interpret that
wrong?).
Mark here} Not just an insult, but the truth! For example, IF xtians REALLY believed the crap they spew out to everyone else, then at the funerals they hold for fellow xtians they'd be the happiest people on Earth. But they're not. They cry and wail, just like us Atheists. Therefore, no, they do NOT believe their own hype.
ummed up: 5 out of 9 comments were insults. 2 out of 2 emails
commented on were badly written. 2 out of 2 emails commented on were
defensive. 1 out of 2 emails commented on was perfectly clear. 1 out
of 3 people whose words were represented on that page could be safely
accused of hypocrisy. Care to wager who I am referring to?
Mark here} Well, excuse me if I hurt YOUR feelings in any way... but I just noticed something. You yourself didn't say squat about the CONTENTS I was delivering in my essays, you only criticized the CONTAINER they were held in: me. This is a typical xtian habit.
I would like to once again clarify that in no way am I challenging
your religious beliefs. I wouldn't dream of it. I am challenging your
perceived hypocrisy and fondness for insults.
Sincerely,
Estelendur
PS Be a dear and put this on your site. I would so love to see your response.
--
The most important things are the hardest to say, because words
diminish them. ~Stephen King
Satan loves me, this I know, for the right-wing bible nuts told me so.
~ Seen on a button
To hate is to study, to study is to understand, to understand is to appreciate,
to appreciate is to love. So maybe I'll end up loving your theory. ~
John A. Wheeler
Subject: email
Date: 10/16/2005 8:38:32 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Hey Mark,
My problem is not that you put my emails
up on your site, it's that you don't put them up. You've only put up a couple of
them and when I make any points that you don't wish to deal with then you just
ignore them. This is now the fourth time I'm trying to start a real
correspondence with you and it will be my last. I'm tired of you calling people
cowards and then go and show yourself to be one as well by not engaging me in
debate. You want proof? I still have records of all the emails I sent you, I can
send them again and you can look all over your site and you won't find them. Now
I don't expect you to put everything you receive up but we are usually right in
the middle of a discussion (that is, we have both sent at least one email on the
topic we're discussing) when you suddenly decide that you don't want to talk no
more. Suddenly, you're gone. I have little respect for people who are
deliberately ignorant. If you can't answer my points then at least have the
integrity to say so. Unless you do respond with some integrity, then lucky for
you, this will be the last you hear from me.
One final observation- Human knowledge by it's very nature,
cannot know that God doesn't exist. Our
knowledge is limited, we are finite and stuck in time. We cannot reach to all
the corners of the universe and beyond to see if God or a god is there. You
simply cannot prove it. There is no actual empirical evidence, something
which you demand from believers but can't produce yourself. All your arguments
on this entire site in no way prove that God doesn't exist. At best they only
question his integrity. You certainly call in to question his character as a
liar and deceiver, but if he is a liar, that certainly does not prove that he
doesn't exist. You have drawn the wrong conclusions from your arguments. If
Jesus proved to be a false prophet in Matthew 24, it does not logically follow
that he does not exist as god incarnate. It only follows that he is a liar or
was himself deceived. So God would be what we would call "evil" because of his
mistakes and corruption. But he could still be there just the same. Your
thoughts don't reach into that venue of debate. As an atheist you believe that
god doesn't exist, but your only "proof" is circumstantial. In the world of
logic or in a court of law you would be thrown out every time. Your mistake is
enormous and you will lose your debate every time.
Chad Wiebe
Mark Smith here} The reason I don't put up some of your emails (see green) is that what you write oft times is just so plain stupid (see yellow). No matter how many times we Atheists have to repeat it, here it goes again. This time, take the fucking cotton out of your ears- maybe you'll actually hear it}
YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE
What does that mean, you say? (assuming you heard it, which if your track record proves consistent, you didn't). It means the following: You can no more prove that Thor or Zeus DOESN'T (this is the "negative" part) exist, than I or anyone else can prove that Joe Hovah doesn't exist. IF you are demanding that I DISprove Joe Hovah exists, then I can equally and fairly demand you prove Thor doesn't exist. To use your own words:
We cannot reach to all the corners of the universe and beyond to see if
GodThor ora godZeus is there.
You simply cannot prove it.
There is no actual empirical evidence, something which you demand from believers but can't produce yourself.
All your arguments on this entire site in no way prove thatGodThor doesn't exist.There, by your own words you are shown to be an idiot. At least shown to the rest of the world- to those who have use of their brains. If and when you recover yours from whatever sect of Christianity has hijacked it, maybe you'll be able to see this too. You can NOT disprove that there are invisible pink penguin gods existing somewhere in the universe. Does that inability, then, demand that you commence immediate worship of said pink penguin gods? Must you bow and grovel and bow the knee to these penguin gods? You, yes. The rest of us, no. We know better. You're still learning.
Mark,
So you admit that your position is indefensible. I have not stated publicly any
opinion on Thor nor invited debate on him so, no, you can't demand I prove he
doesn't exist. I am not waging a war against the existence of Thor and your
demand that I do is a weak attempt to relieve you of your own burden of proof.
You have stated your disbelief in god and then you have admitted that there is
no way to prove what you think is true. How logical do you think you look right
now Mark? By your own admission you say your belief is based on, what? Nothing?
Emotion? Opinion? Once again, you would be thrown out of the debate. The burden
of proof is on you. You have made the assertion and you must be the one to
defend it. You have admitted you cannot do so. No actual thinker will take you
seriously. Now, by your own words, you are shown to be willfully ignorant. If
this is whining to you, then I continue to whine and ask you continue to post my
emails.
Chad Wiebe
Mark Smith here} You know what, Chad? The amount of IGNORANCE of basic Logic 101 that you've displayed in the email above is what scares the hell out of me regarding the future of this country. It's bad enough that people as ignorant as you think you're the opposite; it's horrible that in addition to being so ignorant, you have a vote equal to mine in national elections.
I could spend the next 10 hours trying to educate you as to what "Burden of Proof" means, what "he who asserts must prove" means, what "you can't prove a negative" means, but why bother? Arguing these things with you would be like trying to argue with a flat earther. I tried to explain it as simply as I could, even threw in a few examples regarding Thor and invisible pink penguins, but somehow I failed to communicate to you. The things I have tried to explain to you have NOTHING to do with theology or the lack thereof. It has to do with basic ground level logic and reasoning. Any professor of logic at even a Christian university would say the exact same things.
In fact, here is a CHRISTIAN web page on basic logic. http://www.christianlogic.com/ Go to it and educate yourself, then get back to me. In the meantime, I shall leave your email as an example of someone who has it all ass backwards.
If you want to see where examples of your logic lead to, then please check out these two websites which prove, according to YOUR "logic" at least, that the I.P.U. rules the universe.
http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/ http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm
(NOTE TO READERS: Yes, the email is real. I didn't make it up. I don't have to put words into the mouths of Christians; they do it fine all by themselves. Go ahead and email Chad yourself if you don't believe me. That is one reason I want to include email addresses- to prove I'm not creating Christian straw men of ignorance. So please, don't write and yell at me that I'm making up these people- I'm not. They are real.)
From: --
To:
Cc: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Your Email to Mark Smith
Hi Chad!
My name is Nate. I was reading some of the cool stuff you were telling Mark
Smith, the guy who runs Sets Free web sit. I have written him before and not
gotten a email back, so its very cool you got a some, I think so anyway. What do
you think?
I tried to tell him the same thing. I
told him he couldnt prove God isntt exist because he hasnt traveled everywherer
in the unverse to see if God was there or not, so how could he know there wsn;t
a God? Think about all the stuff that is outisde the universe too, things like
Heaven and Gods Throne and the Emerald City, the New Jerusolem. He hasn't been
there either! How can you say you know for a fact their isn't a God whne you are
just stukc on this tinny planet and haven't been there and stuff?
Anyway, you sure showd him. Thor! You were talking about Jesus and he was
talking about Thor! Everyone knows Thor is a fabel but Jesus is real. Ask
anybody who is not Jewish or something like that. Everyone knows there is a
Jesus but not a Thor! You dont have to travel all over the creation in space
looking for Thor and Zeus because they arent there. He even got his myths all
mixed up! Zeus wasn't related to Thor! He should have read Thor comic books when
he was growing up and he would know that Oden was Thor's dad not Zues.
I am really glad there are smart people like you here on Amereica that know how
to be logicl and put these atheits in there place. God bless you Chud.
Nate
Subj: Re: Your Email to Mark Smith
Date: 10/17/2005 7:40:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
To: -
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hey Nate,
Thanks so much for your email. Smith sure can be difficult to talk to as you've
found out too! I keep challenging him to post my emails but he usually doesn't
so I was surprised that he did this time. I'm going to keep after him and
press him to be logical with his
beliefs as he demands that we are logical with ours. He tends to resort to name
calling when he's in a corner but hopefully people who read his stuff can see
that he's hiding behind that attitude and can't defend his position.
Anyway I was very happy to receive your message and it gave me great
encouragement. Sometimes you wonder if anyone else is seeing the same thing so
thanks a bunch!!
Cheers
Chad
Mark Smith here} The scariest thing about Chad is that he is so ignorant he thinks he's smart. And now look- he thinks he's gotten himself a fan club to join along- Nate. I'm not saying Chad is stupid (i.e. low IQ), but he is ignorant (lacking knowledge). Stupid is a life sentence, ignorance can be fixed. Let's all hope that Chad lets down his arrogance long enough to get a tad more education on logic and reasoning and what "You can not prove a negative" means.
Subject: Hi again Chad! :)
Date: 10/19/2005 6:23:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Mojave Nate
Reply To:
To:
Chad
Mark Smith is
NOT
trying to say that he can disprove the existence of God! With logic or any other
way! You are completely confused as to what he is saying. Mark and I have been
best friends for 32 years, and I just got off the phone with him, and he was
expressing his distaste for your inability and UNWILLINGNESS to understand what
he is saying YOU CLOD! Mark KNOWS one cannot disprove the existence of God any
more than one can disprove the existence of AN INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN! He is
trying to tell thick-skulled peanut brained CLODS such as YOURSELF that he
simply does not believe in God because THERE IS NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE !
WHY IS THAT SO IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND CHADWICK? DID YOUR PARENTS REMOVE YOUR BRAIN AND THEN CRAP IN YOUR SKULL? NO ONE can disprove God or ghosts or invisible unicorns or giant teapots orbit a planet in the Andromeda galaxy! He is telling you YOU HAVE MADE THE ASSERTION A PERSONAL LOVING GOD EXISTS! SO YOU PROVE IT! GIVE SOME COMPELLING EVIDENCE!
Extraordinary CLAIMS demand extraordinary EVIDENCE! PROVE GOD EXISTS! THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON THE ONE MAKING THE ASSERTION. Learn some formal logic, and the scientific method Chad-boy, mmmm'kay? To think you are such a nitwit you didn't even realize my email to you was to mock you! You are one thick headed dude.
Don't you get it? I make the following claim: The Universe was constructed by an Invisible Pink Unicorn [see below] yesterday morning at 3 AM pacific time, complete with the appearance of age and all our (false) memories intact! YOU CANNOT DISPROVE ME! ALL YOU CAN DO IS DEMAND I BACK UP MY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM WITH EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!
You fundies are such thick headed idiots! You are the reason we had THE DARK AGES.
--Nate
Editor's Insertion}}}} The Invisible Pink Unicorn
from the official website of the blessed unicorn:
http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) is a fictional female deity in the form of a unicorn. The goddess was invented at the usenet discussion group alt.atheism as an alternative to other parody deities like Church of the SubGenius "J.R. Bob Dobbs" or Eris of the Discordianism. Quoting from the alt.atheism FAQ:
Like most Goddesses, she's invisible and highly unlikely to exist. However, there is much argument as to her exact colour, her shape and size, and other properties of her nonexistence. She burns with anger against theists, and allegedly grinds them beneath her holy hooves.
The "believers" famous sayings about faith in the invisible pink unicorn is that, like other religions, it is founded in science and faith. Science - that states that she must be invisible, since we cannot see her. Faith - because we know in our heart that the invisible pink unicorn exists. This is of course a parody of the theological reasoning of other religions. [see also: http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm ]
Subject: Re: email
Date: 10/17/2005 8:05:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Mark,
Again you completely ignore my email. You simply resort to calling me stupid and
say that you could educate me but of course you don't. You have admitted that
you cannot defend your position yet you insist that I am being illogical. If you
wish to debate publicly then I accept your challenge. You can use the resolution
given that the C of C pastor gave you. "Be it resolved that I know there is no
God" To be fair my own resolution will be the opposite. "Be it resolved that I
know there is a God". This way we can debate both sides. Your position is
completely indefensible while my position has propositional claims (the
bible)that can be discussed and argued and debated. My first step is to point to
a REAL book for discussion. Your first step is to say that you cannot prove your
belief. You will lose your debate immediately and you know it. If you refuse to
post my acceptance of your debate challenge, then I will personally go over your
entire site and let everybody who has ever emailed you know that I have accepted
your challenge and you have backed down. I think it's time someone called your
bluff. You are standing on nothing while I have actual evidence that can be
discussed one way or another. So let's set this up if you're willing and you can
tell the world that "I can't prove a negative but I believe it anyway." I'm sure
you'll convert many people with that line of "reason." Keep posting Mark
Chad
-----
Mark Smith here} Oh gee Chad, oh my golly PLEEEEEASE don't go thru my entire 400+ page website and email everyone that I'm scared to debate you- that I quake in fear of your intellectual powers. Please don't do that! (hint hint: go for it, you dumbass! hee hee hee.) At least THAT way people will know you are for real and not just some fake "pen name" adversary I cooked up to make Christians look dumb.
Actually, CHAD, unless you are an officially recognized MINISTER of an established CHURCH OF CHRIST and live within driving distance of Los Angeles, I have no interest is wasting my time debating you. My challenge to debate was to Church of Christ MINISTERS, not to every yahoo and Christian nutcase that pops his head up, AND the topic to be debated was to be Church of Christ claims, not other crap.
I could say that maybe if you'd just go back and READ what was written on the Church of Christ page you'd already know this, but I'd be wasting my time, wouldn't I???
Subject: well well well
Date: 10/18/2005 10:37:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Mark,
Obviously you're just wasting my time and you have no interest in real debate. I
noticed you're posting emails that aren't directed to you instead of posting my
email in which I accepted your challenge to debate. Well I suppose that's your
choice. You say that you could take the next ten hours to educate me on what
"burden of proof " means and what "he who asserts must prove" means and what
"you can't prove a negative" means. You claim it's simple logic 101 so surely it
won't take ten hours. Let me help. The burden of proof rests with the one who
takes the affirmative of a resolution. For example "Be
it resolved that I know God doesn't exist."
As an atheist you would affirm such a
statement. In that debate the burden of proof rests with you. You would
assert that it is true so it is up to you to prove it. "Be it resolved that I
know that God exists." As a theist I would affirm that statement so the burden
of proof rests with me. That is how it works in formal debate and that is how it
works in a court of law. It doesn't take ten hours to explain. It is just your
smokescreen to keep yourself from a challenge you can't win. And please, how
simple is it to understand that you can't prove a negative. That is EXACTLY my
point. Your positon as an atheist is indefensible because you can't prove a
negative. You obviously agree with me as per your pink penguins point. So
refuting the existence of pink penguins is a negative (ie unproveable) and
refuting the existence of God is a negative (ie unproveable). Your position is
not weak, it's not even reasonable to the smallest degree. As an agnostic you
would have an arguement but not as an atheist. People mock what they cannot
understand and obviously you're not getting any of this even though it is simple
"logic 101."
Basic laws of classical logic:
1. The law of identity (A is A)
2. The law of non-contradiction (A is not non A)
3. The law of the excluded middle (either A or B, either true or false, not
both)
4. The law of rational inference ( inductive or deductive logic)
Learn what these mean and get back to me. I'm ready when you are. Do you dare to
keep posting my emails or is this where you back out?
Chad
Mark Smith here} NOT that it will do any good, for you suffer from what I call impenetrable ignorance, but I say this for those who may be reading right now.
As everybody knows, the word "Atheist" means without belief in a god. "A" means without, "theist" means god. An Atheist lacks belief in a god. For example, you Chad are an Atheist when it comes to Thor or Zeus. You lack a belief that they exist. You can never PROVE they don't exist, for "you can't prove a negative" as everyone in the Universe seems to know except YOU.
Now, you are NOT an Atheist when it comes to Joe Hovah. You assert he exists. He who asserts must prove. Therefore, it is up to you to PROVE it exists, not up to me to try to prove it does NOT exist.
So Chad, please stop embarrassing yourself and your fellow Christians by your appalling ignorance. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity cannot. I hope you are curable.
Subject: Re: well well well
Date: 10/20/2005 8:01:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
If I'm so ignorant and so terribly wrong,
why do you repeatedly refuse to debate?
Could it be that you know that you can't win? One word for you Mark - COWARD.
But don't worry, I won't waste any more time with you. You've made your
decision. Thanks for posting my emails. I'm gone.
Chad
Oh by the way, you sure got me good Nate!
That was awesome! Once again, atheists show their true color with lies and
deception.
Mark Smith here} Why do I refuse to debate? Why do YOU refuse to at least read the fucking replies I've already MADE to you which explain WHY I am not interested in debating a nobody such as yourself. I wrote the full details to you (scroll up a little and you'll see it). Why can't you read???
As for what Nate did, he exposed to all the world not just that you are a dumbass, but that you are a MAJOR LEAGUE dumbass when it comes to the very subjects you pretend to be good at. Everyone else in the universe knew right away that he was pulling your leg. Why not you? All I can hope for is that you don't run for president- you just might be dumb enough to get elected!
Subject: Fw: let's finish
Date: 10/21/2005 10:58:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Hey Mark, I tried to send this to Nate to finish what we started but there
seems to be a problem with his email address. Could you pass this message his
way for me.
Hey Nate,
I'm done talking to Mark with his unbelievable stubborn refusual to see the
obvious but I do need to finish what you and I started. Unless you are willing
to take on a real challenge then I label you officially chicken and you won't
hear from me again. I have real debates to battle.
I find it hard to believe that he let you post your lies to me on his site.
Someone like Mark who claims to use reason and logic actually let you lie and
decieve me which totally makes his site look utterly stupid. Some friend you
are. So your little ruse didn't work eh? Having a little fun at my expense
certainly doesn't strengthen your position. Let's recap what's been said shall
we?
"You can't prove a negative" We all three know it. You spent your entire last
email trying to convince me of something I already agreed to. If I assert that
God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you challenge me then I must
respond. You assert that God doesn't
exist.
Mark Smith here} Jesus Fucking H. Christ you major goddamn MORON!!! HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD
WE ARE NOT ASSERTING THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
What are you, fucking BLIND in addition to being fucking STUPID that you never seem to understand that point??? WE KNOW BETTER than to assert that point. That's been our whole point to you, but you're TOO FUCKING STUPID to get it.
If that last statement is not true then let me know. If it is, then THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU BECAUSE YOU ASSERTED IT. This is how formal debate works, this is how it works in a court of law, and this is how it works in logic. I proposed a two pronged debate so both sides had a chance to prove their point. Mark chickened out. You only want to accuse but you don't want to prove. As I said, if you were an agnostic then you would have nothing to prove because you believe you can't. Get this in your head - IT IS AN ASSERTION TO SAY THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. IT IS AN ASSERTION. Read that sentence over a few times mm'kay? You and I both have a burden of proof for our beliefs. The difference is that I'm willing to defend mine but you are not. You wish to attack but you cannot defend. I would blast you out of the water every time in a debate and both you and Mark know it. You just too cowardly to accept that you have made an assertion. Ask any professor or lawyer if "God doesn't exist" is an assertion.
Mark Smith here} IF I (not Nate, for he is a theist of some sort) am asserting ANYTHING here, it is this: the EVIDENCE that Christians present to BACK UP THEIR ASSERTION that their gods exists FAILS TO CONVINCE ME. Do you understand that? I have examined your evidence, I have examined the arguments, I have thought long and hard about this FOR LONGER THAN YOU'VE BEEN ALIVE asswipe, and my honest and truthful conclusion is this: The evidence FAILS to "demand a verdict" from me.
You want to condemn me for this? You want to publicly castigate me for not LYING? Would you prefer to hear me LIE by saying "Oh yes, Chad, I have read your kindergartenish attempts at logic and, by golly, YOU have convinced me. William Lane Craig, Walter Martin, and Norman Geisler all failed to convince me, but you- you have done the trick."
IF it is a "sin" to be UN-gullible, then count me a sinner. IF your Biblegod wants to fry my ass for being HONEST about my reaction to the evidence presented to "prove" his existence, then so be it. I'm not going to LIE just to get into your stupid heaven, or is that what you want?
Do you want me to LIE and say what's NOT in my gut, to say "Yes, I now BELIEVE your Biblegod exists!!!!" Is that what you want? The fact is I remain unconvinced your Biblegod exist because the evidence has failed to convince me. THAT'S THE ATH-HONEST TRUTH, and fuck ALL you Christians who can't handle it. IF AND WHEN evidence is presented that DOES convince us THEN we shall be convinced, but not before then. Just don't go patting yourselves on the back because you're more gullible and thus require a LOWER standard of evidence than we do. Stupidity is nothing to be proud of.
You will find that it is. Every time. I can defend mine but you can't defend
yours as you have already admitted. So let's stop being so foolish and put up or
shut up. I challenged - you guys ran. Who's the winner here? Shout all you want
but we both have the burden of proof and only one is willing to defend it.
So you lied to me, decieved me, mocked me and tried to convince me of something
I already agreed to. Be proud that you have reached the pinnacle of
stupidy. Be careful you don't
push each other off. Now go run to Mark and congratulate each other on your
ingnorance. It truly is
unequalled.
Mark Smith here} Speaking of being "stupid" and speaking of "ignorance" YOU are so stupid & ignorant you can't even SPELL "stupid" and "ignorant". Ha ha ha... A fine product of a Christian kindergarten, no doubt, but your IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY shall not hold you back from confronting the enemies of your imagination, shall it???
"I hear the voices in my head... they are telling me to send yet another
email to Mark Smith and Nate... maybe even more massive
displays of ignorance will convince them..."
Chad
P.S. The taking out the brain and crapping in the skull line (see:
CRAP_IN_YOUR_SKULL) was funny. I'll
concede you got me there. I'm stealing that line for future discussions.
Subject: just one more (last time-really)
Date: 10/22/2005 11:48:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Mark'n'Nator,
Aw man I just can't resist one last email. This is my last one - really. No
really. I mean it this time. (of course I don't expect you to have changed your
mind about God at this point because I have not made any arguments to that
effect yet. I've just been challenging you to a debate on the topic and pointing
out your shortcomings. Sheesh, please read before you blurt.) I could offer the
same line of reasoning as you, i.e. "I am not asserting that God exists, just
that you don't offer any evidence that He doesn't. You have only attacked His
character, not His existence so you PROVE NOTHING. I AM NOT ASSERTING YOU
IDIOT!!" Then you would say that I have no evidence and I would say that you
have no evidence ad infinitum. Your ducking the burden of proof leaves you and I
with no debate at all because if I use your reasoning, we're stuck in a catch
22.
(I do like your honesty though. If you really are being honest with how you
think then you have no choice but to do what you're doing, so that's cool. I
kinda think you have more of an agenda than just honesty though.)
It's kind of been like you and I have been in the ring y'know? I'm trashing you,
calling you out to fight, literally begging for some action. You're ducking
behind the ref yelling, "Only I'm allowed to hit, only me! Don't let Chad throw
any punches! Chad can defend but it's just not fair to let him hit back! Only ME
only ME!!! I don't want to get hurt! No fair no fair!!"
Now really, if you think you can attack and demand from me in verbal warfare and
somehow think I'm not going to hit back, then you're freakin' nuts. You
spineless egg-sucking weasel, welcome to the real world. Where people hit back.
Where I hit back. Once again, put up or shut up.
Actually I'm working on a new line of thought I have not found anywhere else
(shades of it are everywhere but never in completion) on the existence of God.
When it is complete I will send you a copy for your consideration. While I am
convinced from many other proofs that you have rejected, I still see a need to
continue in the apologetics game. You may be surprised at the paradigm shift I
am putting forth and a new line of thought you might not be able to resist. Yes,
even you Mark-o-the-beast, are hittable, even behind your ref-duckin-rhetoric.
If you are honest with yourself and let your guard down just for a bit, you
might see something that will change you. I don't expect it to be done for a
while yet as the first draft of the idea is being perused by a leading American
philosopher (really - and no, I'm not telling yet).
Get used to being hit Mark. You're like the big kid who's used to pushing others
around but goes crying to mommy when someone hits back. Well, mommy ain't gonna
save you this time. As I said, welcome to the real world. See you nator-mark.
Chad
It was real nice to see you put on your site that you are not asserting that God
doesn't exist, in so many words. That's check. Think about it.
No matter what you say Mark, atheistic belief is an assertion. That was my point. You cannot get around that fact and your own words prove it. Looks like you got some 'Splainin to do'.
Cheers
Chad
Mark Smith here}
Chad-
This is just a preliminary email to save you time and trouble.
I deny the existence of BIBLE-God as "he" exists on the pages of the Bible and
in the imaginations of Fundies, as I can disprove logically that such a being
could ever exist.
I do not deny the existence of a generic deity, nor can I disprove such a deity
may be existing somewhere in the universe, be it the Flying Spaghetti Monster or
The Invisible Pink Unicorn. What I do believe is that the so-called evidence for
such beings does not convince me to believe.
Therefore, if you are constructing an essay for me, please take that into
account.
Yours NOT in him,
Mark Smith