• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Infinity!!!

Here's something that Ricky Gervais pointed out to Karl Pilkington: the total number of even numbers is equal to the total number of odd numbers, which is also equal to the number of odd and even numbers added together.
 
Here we go, guys! The Christian equivalent to Leumas's OP. The Horseshoe Theory in action!

From the National Catholic Register:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/when-it-comes-to-infinity-the-confusion-of-atheists-is-boundless
When it Comes to Infinity, the Confusion of Atheists is Boundless

To casually brush off infinity belies an ignorance of reality and critical thinking on the part of fundamentalist atheists...

Fundamentalist atheists are far from understanding even their own tiny corner of the universe, let alone its entirety.

Atheists casually toss around the word “infinite” in describing the universe as if it meant nothing at all. But, in reality, it means everything … literally. If they stopped to think about the word, they wouldn't be so casual about it and come to a real knowledge of the concept and its relationship to the Almighty...
...
To casually brush off Infinity belies an outrageous and disrespectful ignorance of reality and critical thinking on the part of fundamentalist atheists.
All very silly, of course.
Can anyone tell me what a "fundamentalist atheist" is and how it differs from a regular atheist? This reminds me of a conversation with Kurious Kathy, a theist who used to post here. She liked to use the phrase "so-called atheist", but I never could get her to tell me the difference between that and a regular atheist.
 
No you have not... you misrepresented it and strawmanned it and it is only the first line of the the OP that you did not manage to read correctly and thus failed to reperesent correctly.
How can I misrepresent it when I quoted it verbatim? What alternative meaning of "keep telling" can you offer that doesn't mean "frequently and persistently"? Since I'm not to only one who read it that way, perhaps you could explain to us what your initial sentence really means?

<snip ad hominems and straw man fallacies along with falsities>
I think you mean "<snip argument that is beyond my ability to address>".

<snipped infantile use of emojis, because we're not eleven year olds>

Thanks for the above emotional and fervent fallacies... in furtherance of your defenses on behalf of Christian Apologists while vehemently denying it QED!!!
That's on the same level as "I know you are but what am I?". You may as well start accusing us of spreading Christian cooties. The argument that by pointing out that a generalization you've made about Christian apologists isn't true for more than a small minority we are somehow promoting Christian apologetics is incredibly stupid. It's a very, very stupid argument, and someone with your obvious mastery of written English should be above such childish tactics.

ETA: maybe you might care to refrain from further fallacies and answer the question that GDon will never dare answer, posed in this post.
I was certainly game to have a go at it, but the link wouldn't work. Then I noticed that you'd edited out the above challenge. I'm still up for it, if you'll point me to the question. Or did you delete it because you were afraid someone might answer it?
 
Well, I for one never met a Christian apologist I didn't like.

Or a Christian apologist I did like. Fact is, I've never met one, or seen one at a distance chittering from the mouth of his burrow. I probably wouldn't even recognize their scat.

Maybe those jokers flogging Jesus products and gladiolus bulbs over Station XCLO in Juarez were C.A.s, but we could only.pick em up in January, when northern Wyoming gets down to -40F. Or C, same damn temp. Anyway, they're plumb outside my department, and I dearly hope old Bruthah Leumas will tithe me over for another year.

Now I'm curious about Foster Z's false foods. I'm trying to lose weight, & those might be just the ticket.
 
Well, I for one never met a Christian apologist I didn't like.

Or a Christian apologist I did like. Fact is, I've never met one, or seen one at a distance chittering from the mouth of his burrow. I probably wouldn't even recognize their scat.

Maybe those jokers flogging Jesus products and gladiolus bulbs over Station XCLO in Juarez were C.A.s, but we could only.pick em up in January, when northern Wyoming gets down to -40F. Or C, same damn temp. Anyway, they're plumb outside my department, and I dearly hope old Bruthah Leumas will tithe me over for another year.

Now I'm curious about Foster Z's false foods. I'm trying to lose weight, & those might be just the ticket.

Seems that you will shortly be accused of being a Christian apologist (if you have not already had that pleasure). Welcome aboard.
 
I provided examples long before you posted anything not pure fallacies in the thread... along with more examples to rebut your fallacious falsity that I did not.
Ah yes, my mistake. You linked to a blog by Evan Minton, who is so influential in the field of Christian apologetics that his blog post on the subject has had zero replies since December of 2017. Again, this is not evidence that the assertion you make about Christian beliefs is common orthodoxy. It's still just a small subset of religious apologists, and it coexist with other religious apologists who claim differently. That's the thing about made-up belief systems. There's usually a great deal of contradiction amongst their adherents.

You falsely slander me of not having provided examples of Liars for Jesus... and when I point you to the ones I did before you falsely slandered me... and provide further examples... you come back and say the examples are not enough because you baselessly bare assert decrees that they are not.
No, I did not. I simply misremembered when you had first presented an example. Neither I nor anyone else has claimed that no apologist has ever claimed to have a problem with the notion of infinity, only with your implication that this position is common.

Honestly, it isn't even the greatest error in your OP, in my opinion. That would be your belief that the frequency of random, equally probable results of a coin toss converging toward 50/50 with increasing frequency somehow means that the coin tosses aren't random.

Wow... relentless consternated concerns to defend Liars For Jesus.... QED!!!
I'm only defending them from one thing, and that's another liar.
 
Can anyone tell me what a "fundamentalist atheist" is and how it differs from a regular atheist? This reminds me of a conversation with Kurious Kathy, a theist who used to post here. She liked to use the phrase "so-called atheist", but I never could get her to tell me the difference between that and a regular atheist.

Now there's a blast from the past. For some reason I was thinking she was banned, but I guess she just left.
 
Now there's a blast from the past. For some reason I was thinking she was banned, but I guess she just left.
I do miss the full blown theists we used to have here. Not the maybe-there-is-some-kind-of-higher-power kind but the ones who swallow everything, hook, line and sinker. I actually admired the fortitude of the ones who were able to take the heat here from all us atheists.


Perhaps she was banned, I don't remember, She's not on the members list now.
 
Most Christians don't seem to do well with large numbers, much less infinity. Admitting that our planet is hopelessly insignificant in terms of both space and time goes against the dogma that humans are supremely important in the universe.
 
Can anyone tell me what a "fundamentalist atheist" is and how it differs from a regular atheist?


A "fundamentalist atheist" is a linguistic artifice fabricated by Liars For Jesus (see here).

It is a ruse often exploited by Concern Trolls on social media pretending (ala Paul's 1 Corinthians 9:20-23) to be "open minded" atheists all the while scare mongering equivocations between atheism and theism and labeling atheists who expose their lies for Jesus, as "fundamentalist atheists" like those odious fundamentalist Christians they pretend not to be.
 
Last edited:
I do miss the full blown theists we used to have here....

... This reminds me of a conversation with Kurious Kathy, a theist who used to post here. She liked to use the phrase "so-called atheist", but I never could get her to tell me the difference between that and a regular atheist.


Atheism is another thing Christian Apologists deny exists.

During their casuistry they insist that there are no REAL atheists... only ones who are denying Jesus as their Lord out of the darkness in their hearts and innate evil... they are vehemently adamant that the "so called atheists" know jolly well that Jesus is Lord but do not want to admit it out of their arrogance and rebellion.
 
Last edited:
Atheism is another thing Christian Apologists deny exists.

During their casuistry they insist that there are no REAL atheists... only ones who are denying Jesus as their Lord out of the darkness in their hearts and innate evil... they are vehemently adamant that the "so called atheists" know jolly well that Jesus is Lord but do not want to admit it out of their arrogance and rebellion.
"They're just mad at God". Yeah right, I'm just mad at Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as well. Idiots.


I wasn't aware that this subset of Christians was sometimes referred to as "Christian Apologists". I was thinking of something more along the lines of "fundamentalist".
 
Last edited:
The real hardcore atheists shoot themselves the moment they realise the futility of existence.

Not like those poseur atheists who try to find some completely arbitrary and contrived reason to remain a slave to their survival instinct. I'm looking at you Nietzsche!
 
Can anyone tell me what a "fundamentalist atheist" is and how it differs from a regular atheist?
"Fundamentalist atheist" is used in two ways:

(1) An atheist who believes that Christians must read the Bible literally and believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. Anything else is "wishy washy" Christianity and is risible. You'll find those atheists often agreeing with fundamentalist Christians on what makes good theology.

(2) An atheist who views the universe through the prism of Science. Not "science", but "SCIENCE!" Everything is Science. And anything that is not Science -- i.e. religion -- is not True. In fact, being religious is a sign of a mental disorder. It's a trademarking issue.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom