tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3857923386700394696..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Robert G. Ingersoll on the BibleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40325231541022676482009-08-13T19:35:07.090-04:002009-08-13T19:35:07.090-04:00Cromm
Blue is using almost the exact same respons...Cromm<br /><br /><i>Blue is using almost the exact same responses he or she tried out on me in the slavery thread. He/she sticks to the same script regardless of what you say, or how badly he/she is embarrassed in previous discussions.</i><br /><br />I concur.<br /><br />Blue is so pathetically oblivious to her strained rationalizations, loopy logic, circular reasoning, contradictory reasoning and kindergarten defenses, that she really isn't supporting ANY of her deluded arguments nor is she contributing ANYTHING to the discussion. <br /><br />In fact, She has used every fallacious argument out there, and if this was an accredited college debate course she would be laughed right out of class with a big scarlet F pinned to her shirt. <br /><br />--S.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25341071378409967112009-08-13T19:18:42.272-04:002009-08-13T19:18:42.272-04:00Blue is using almost the exact same responses he o...Blue is using almost the exact same responses he or she tried out on me in the slavery thread. He/she sticks to the same script regardless of what you say, or how badly he/she is embarrassed in previous discussions.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404448630593670371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39400285798043583772009-08-13T18:46:15.222-04:002009-08-13T18:46:15.222-04:00~continued~
John Loftus x2. Again, I left that pr...~continued~<br /><br /><i>John Loftus x2. Again, I left that prior dialgoue b/c of your lack of veneration for others. I won't put up with your animus.</i> <br /> <br />Which over and over again, you have demonstrated that you WILL put up with my style by continuing to address me. Again you are cuckoo -- nuts. The time you have used to address me here could have been used to address my 56 questions and comments. This would lead ANYONE, who is reading this, to think that you have done NOTHING but vomit up whiny B.S. excuses because you are indeed incapable of addressing my points. <br /> <br /><i>You again show you will give John the benefit of your double standard b/c you accuse me and not him. I have yet to see you post anything confronting John.</i><br /><br />Again, another diverging strawman. A B.S. excuse for not addressing my points.<br /> <br />Also, I can use your kindergarten defense too: You want the god of bluemongoose to address your points but why should he address your points when John doesn't address your points -- nanny, nanny boo, boo.<br /> <br />I can not believe you resort to that kindergarten argument. It is painfully obvious you can NOT address my arguments so your only defense is to say other people do not address arguments -- whaaaaaaa!<br /> <br /><i>He is the catalyst to these debates? Are you serious? Oh, heaven forbid I should say anything that could be construed as negative against the high and mighty name of John Loftus, right?</i> <br /> <br />Diverging strawman -- once again.<br /> <br />I don't care if you critique John -- SAY what ever you damn well please about him.<br /> <br />Additionally it is a factual assessment -- john regularly gets the debate started. <br /> <br /><i>Are you some kind of yes man for John? Don't you think he's old enough to fight his own battles?</i><br /> <br />He can do whatever he wants. Again its his playground. But using the lame argument that john doesn't address argument so you don't have to is a strawman and a lame whiny excuse. <br /><br />Which would be the same whiny B.S. excuse used against the god of bluemongoose to get of debating with you. <i>I don't have to engage you; john doesn't engage people so why should I engage you? Isn't that a double standered? -- nah, nah, nah, na, na.</i><br /> <br />I beginning to think your days our numbered here.<br /> <br />I can hardly wait for john to ban you for your use of infantile and fallacious B.S. arguments.<br /> <br />No doubt you'll pat yourself on the back delusionaly thinking you have accomplished something and that you were banned because your arguments were <i>so stellar</i> no one could refute them, when in reality you wallowed in morbid ignorance, massive fallacies, circular reasoning and pathetic kindergarten defenses.<br /><br />--S.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23647127667808317092009-08-13T18:45:32.890-04:002009-08-13T18:45:32.890-04:00~continued~
"Cuckoo". Is that the best ...~continued~<br /><br /><i>"Cuckoo". Is that the best you can do, SConnor? Why use such an ignoble way of deffending what you believe? It shows you don't have much confidence in your worldview and that it can't stand on its own merits. What you put up with. Again, can you go into your local grocery store and rant and rave with "sentence enhancers" like you do here? "Can..you..grasp..that?"</i><br /><br />I can assure you if a grocer put my eggs in a bag and then proceeded to put jugs of milk and other heavy items on them crushing them I would have other words other than cuckoo.<br /> <br />What's more the use of the word "cuckoo" was a legitimate characterization of you, of insanely misrepresenting my argument. I not only said cuckoo but I backed it up with a salient argument which you have either ignored or misrepresented.<br /> <br />Notice what I said specifically, and how it went woooosh right over your head, so that you could only resort to misrepresenting my argument.<br /> <br />Your argument was: <i>You wouldn't put up with that in real life, so why should I put up with it here?</i> <br /><br />I countered that feeble argument by sharing with you that, I do indeed put up with it -- real life and on other informal blogs. It was NOT an argument insinuating that you should put up with it, because I put up with it. Can...you...grasp...that?<br /> <br />All I did was counter your erroneous assertion that I do NOT put up with it because indeed I do put up with it. You continue to vomit up your strawman that I'm trying to make an argument that Just because others do it you should do it too -- that's cuckoo and I demonstrated how that was cuckoo.<br /><br /><i>Intellectual capacities. Again, here you go frothing at the mouth when your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits. You give a lot of credit to the "angry atheist" mantra.</i><br /><br />Well I can assure you I am NOT angry. I'm tired of your infantile, fallacious arguments and B.S. diverging tactics but I'm perfectly content. <br /> <br />And since it hasn't penetrated your dense cranium -- I am NOT an atheist. <br /> <br />And you have over and over again demonstrated that you do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend circular reasoning. You also compound this problem -- once again showing your lack of intellectual thought -- by not defending your use of circular reason, specifically -- but instead assert that the use of reason is circular and is fallacious <i><b>also</b></i> thereby admitting circular reason is impotent. That's cuckoo -- nuts.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11493164295969467232009-08-13T18:44:12.859-04:002009-08-13T18:44:12.859-04:00bluemongoose
Prior dialogue x 2. So you're sa...bluemongoose<br /><br /><i>Prior dialogue x 2. So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite?</i> <br /> <br />No the evidence is your responses were lame and trite. Additionally they were steeped in circular reasoning. These are facts -- not how I personally feel.<br /> <br />Furthermore you quit and NEVER finished responding to them leveling lame excuses as to why you quit. so that's less then lame and trite -- that's nil<br /> <br /><i>Never addressed the responses at hand. Yes, I did, just not the way you expected me to.</i> <br /> <br />No. No you didn't -- again, you quit.<br /> <br />And like I said you responded just for the sake of responding. None of your supposed answers actually addressed my questions and comments.<br /> <br /><i>You still suffered a defeat b/c I came at one of you unguarded angles. Still a defeat even if you weren't expecting it.</i><br /><br />Yeah stick with that deluded assessment.<br /><br />~Let's try something here~<br /><br />So you're saying I suffered a defeat b/c you simply personally feel I sufferd a defeat?<br /><br />Can you see how idiotically infantile that arguemnt is? It's your lame aguement from above: <i>So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite?</i><br /><br /><i>Inaccurate analogy. So are you saying that cussing and derrogatory remarks are good just b/c some of your friends don't mind being cussed at and called derrogatory names? There's your relativism monster again.</i><br /><br />No -- Again a strawman on your part. I'm making an analogy beteween commenting on this <b>informal public blog</b> with other <b>informal public blogs</b>. <br /><br />Your the one who constructed a strawman and tried to compare it to other unrelated situations. Of course I wouldn't cuss at let's say a job interview. Again my use of cussing which is fairly limited is used mostly as a qualifying adjective at <b>informal public blogs</b>. <br /><br /><i>Other Christian guests. 1) Was it your perception that they were being disrespectful? 2) If they were actually disrespectful, did it make it right?</i> <br /> <br />No, they just used words that you would subjectively construe as bad words, because it is an informal public blog.<br /> <br /><i>Why are you still judging one individual by what other people do? Can I judge you by what your friends or siblings do -- or even by what other skeptics do?</i><br /><br />Oh like you judge john's actions? Again you misconstrue my argument I'm saying this is an informal blog where John let's people use cuss words with in reason. It's his playground. I have never been reprimanded by my cavalier use of cuss words.<br /> <br />Furthermore you used the whiny excuse of cuss words so you could bail on answering the 56 questions and comments.<br /> <br />I haven't changed my style -- in the least -- and still continue to use cuss words and you still continue to address me, which tells me your argument for not addressing my 56 points is fallacious -- nothing but a pathetic attempt at not addressing my points.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6760004329849717282009-08-13T17:32:12.065-04:002009-08-13T17:32:12.065-04:00«"So you're saying your idea of evidence ...«"<i>So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite? Never addressed the responses at hand. Yes, I did, just not the way you expected me to.</i>"»<br /><br />Who expects someone to be deliberately lame and trite?<br /><br />«"<i>Can I judge you by what your friends or siblings do -- or even by what other skeptics do?</i>"»<br /><br />You seem to think that it's just fine for God to judge the innocent by what the guilty do.<br /><br />«"<i>Again, can you go into your local grocery store and rant and rave with "sentence enhancers" like you do here?</i>"»<br /><br />You mean ranting and raving with "sentence enhancers" like "you're blending lines"?<br /><br />«"<i>Intellectual capacities. Again, here you go frothing at the mouth when your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits.</i>"»<br /><br />Your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits because of your obviously faulty intellectual capacities.<br /><br />«"<i>Again, I left that prior dialgoue b/c of your lack of veneration for others. I won't put up with your animus.</i>"»<br /><br />Kind of like atheists leave Christian dialoge because of your lack of veneration for others. Atheists won't put up with your animus -- or Yahweh's animus.<br /><br />«"<i>You again show you will give John the benefit of your double standard b/c you accuse me and not him.</i>"»<br /><br />Just like you give God the benefit of your double standard because you accuse us and not him.<br /><br />«"<i>I have yet to see you post anything confronting John.</i>"»<br /><br />I have yet to see you post anything confronting God.<br /><br />«"<i>He is the catalyst to these debates? Are you serious?</i>"»<br /><br />LOL.<br /><br />Oh, heaven forbid I should say anything that could be construed as negative against the high and mighty name of Yahweh, right? Are you some kind of yes man for Yahweh? Don't you think he's old enough to fight his own battles?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12946185607888099602009-08-13T16:10:53.666-04:002009-08-13T16:10:53.666-04:00SConnor:
Prior dialogue x 2. So you're sayin...SConnor:<br /><br />Prior dialogue x 2. So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite? Never addressed the responses at hand. Yes, I did, just not the way you expected me to. You still suffered a defeat b/c I came at one of you unguarded angles. Still a defeat even if you weren't expecting it.<br /><br />Inaccurate analogy. So are you saying that cussing and derrogatory remarks are good just b/c some of your friends don't mind being cussed at and called derrogatory names? There's your relativism monster again.<br /><br />Other Christian guests. 1) Was it your perception that they were being disrespectful? 2) If they were actually disrespectful, did it make it right? Why are you still judging one individual by what other people do? Can I judge you by what your friends or siblings do -- or even by what other skeptics do?<br /><br />"Cuckoo". Is that the best you can do, SConnor? Why use such an ignoble way of deffending what you believe? It shows you don't have much confidence in your worldview and that it can't stand on its own merits. What you put up with. Again, can you go into your local grocery store and rant and rave with "sentence enhancers" like you do here? "Can..you..grasp..that?"<br /><br />Intellectual capacities. Again, here you go frothing at the mouth when your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits. You give a lot of credit to the "angry atheist" mantra.<br /><br />John Loftus x2. Again, I left that prior dialgoue b/c of your lack of veneration for others. I won't put up with your animus. You again show you will give John the benefit of your double standard b/c you accuse me and not him. I have yet to see you post anything confronting John.<br /><br />He is the catalyst to these debates? Are you serious? Oh, heaven forbid I should say anything that could be construed as negative against the high and mighty name of John Loftus, right? Are you some kind of yes man for John? Don't you think he's old enough to fight his own battles?Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41902865460964402452009-08-13T00:58:19.456-04:002009-08-13T00:58:19.456-04:00-- Continued --
Why do you believe your personal ...-- Continued --<br /><br /><b>Why do you believe your personal emotions are a foundation on which to build anything?</b><br /><br />I used the world "felt" as a indication of certainty. How you would describe your level of certainty and why?<br /><br /><b>Gravity. So b/c humans may not know the answer, does that mean there is ultimately no answer?</b><br /><br />Apparently you failed to actually read my response. Please read it carefully... <br /><br /><i>Surely there is some mechanism that causes gravity, but we currently do not (and may never) know it. </i><br /><br /><b>This is where reliance on Yahweh, the maker of knowledge and truth, comes in handy.</b><br /><br />If relying on Yahweh is as handy as you claim, then you should have no problem saving all of those scientists and researchers centuries of time by revealing all of these truths directly. <br /><br />We're waiting.... <br /><br /><b>But, yes, if we trully did completely rely on Yahweh, there would be no hunger, cancer and unclean energy. Sadly, this is what happens when we declare our total autonomy, separate and apart from God. Ask me why!</b><br /><br />Blue, are you sure it's not because you declared your total independence from Shiva or Allah? Or perhaps it's because you've decided that you're no longer bound to human limitation, despite still being human?<br /><br />You've completely ignored my question a second time. <br /><br /><b><i> *** Do you not agree that communication not a two way street? ***</i></b><br /><br /><b>Reliance and dependence on Yahweh.</b><br /><br />Still waiting on all those answers, which you don't need to verify to have knowledge of. <br /><br /><b>Be careful not to blend lines here. </b><br /><br />What does "blending lines" mean and why do I need to be careful not to? <br /><br /><b>Remember the free will issue.</b><br /><br />Remember that giving us clear choices would not require God force us to choose one of those choices.<br /><br /><b>Gas grill. Your illustration implies God does nothing to stop atrocities.</b><br /><br />My illustration is designed to show that, even when dealing with finite human beings, we associate knowledge with significant responsibility. If God is truly as all knowing as you claim, then the vast majority of responsibility in regards to communication falls on God.<br /><br /><b>How can you judge the perspective of the infinite?</b><br /><br />Apparently you don't have any problems judging what an infinite God would do or know. Why should your judgement be any better than mine. Or any better than a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? <br /><br /><b>What if I did everything within my power to warn the individual about the potential dangers of misuse, and he/she ignored me?</b><br /><br />Do you think I could ignore God if he did everything within his power? <br /><br /><b> Why do you assume God doesn't give clear choices?</b><br /><br />Wait, I thought God couldn't give clear choices? Which is it?<br /><br /><b>What if this was an issue of despite God giving the clearest explanations, people refused to accept them? It again becomes a free will issue.</b><br /><br />Clarity as compaired to what? Allah or Mormonism? You've setting a very low bar for clarity. What if you've mistaken you're belief that the Christian God exists, among other religious claims, as clarity where none actually exists?<br /><br /><b>Responsibility of God. Why do you assume you're using my definition of God?</b><br /><br />Oh.. that's right. You think God would rather sentence us to an eternity of suffering and torture due to a decision made with incomplete information, rather than reveal himself to us so we can make an informed choice. What was I thinking?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43322758847789635852009-08-13T00:57:29.102-04:002009-08-13T00:57:29.102-04:00Human fallibility and misinterpretation. The reaso...<b>Human fallibility and misinterpretation. The reason I was glad you recognized the problem here is b/c I want you to come away from the "human reasoning is the only way we verify reason" position. </b><br /><br />Blue, notice how you said "you want." Just because you "want" there to be some magical way to avoid the problem of human cognition, doesn't mean such a way actually exists in reality. <br /><br /><b>I'm just eliminating that option here.</b><br /><br />That you've actually eliminated anything has yet to be established. <br /><br /><b>You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you agreed about the pesonal bias thing. What you personally perceive could be the incorrect way to perceive.</b><br /><br />No, I'm not. Remember, I suggested there were ways to compensate for the problem of human cognition. Not overcome them completely. <br /><br /><b>There you go again assuming. Scott, you'd be better served by just asking why questions to clarify perception issues. Try that one again.</b><br /><br />I'd be better served? You mean you'd be better served. What I did here is applied the null hypothesis in regards to God's supposed actions vs his supposed attributes and goals. The result is that what we observe is what one would expect if God was actually a construct created by human beings instead of an omniscient and omnipotent being. <br /><br /><b>How do you know 75% is an exact figure? And can we be sure of the authenticity of the poll if it is conducted by humans?</b><br /><br />It's not an exact figure, not does it need to be for my point to be valid. Despite God's patience, roughly two thirds of the worlds population will still end up in Hell according to Christianity.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58014691857243686882009-08-12T20:12:42.651-04:002009-08-12T20:12:42.651-04:00bluemongoose
Why do you assume just b/c I'm e...bluemongoose<br /><br /><i>Why do you assume just b/c I'm exposing atheist/skeptic arguments against theology as bunk, that I'm being mean?</i> <br /> <br />What the hell are you talking about? Mean? References please.<br /> <br /><i>Perhaps this is a last ditch effort to prop up your failing arguments that can't stand on their own merits?</i> <br /> <br />Oh -- you mean the "failing arguments" that you said, <i>are all important points and your questions deserve answers...</i><br /><br />...the ones, which you subsequently really didn't answer, then bailed and then continued to regale us with pathetic whiny excuses -- those arguments?<br /> <br /><i>Show me where I've criticized others' faults. Why are you using a doctrine you believe to be false as a weapon against anyone? Unless you believe it has merit, this wouldn't make any sense...</i> <br /><br />.......and you still continue to engage me. So much for your deluded infantile arguments of not addressing my arguments because I cuss. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.<br /> <br />Address the first set of questions (without circular reasoning and kindergarten defenses) and my last post, then I'll address your qestion.<br /> <br />56 arguments and growing...........<br /> <br />I can, also, use your words: stop making lame excuses and <i>engage me in debate, unless you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious iconoclast that you are.</i><br /><br />--S.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2219817748642528202009-08-12T17:57:23.977-04:002009-08-12T17:57:23.977-04:00«"Except you let sketpics off the hook when t...«"<i>Except you let sketpics off the hook when they use the "human reasoning is the onnly way to verify reason" circular reasoning.</i>"»<br /><br />It's not circular, it's tautological. You can't have any reasoning at all without reasoning.<br /><br />«"<i>Where else would we look for the answers but in the Bible?</i>"»<br /><br />If God were actually real, God could and would give the answers.<br /><br />«"<i>You are a biased fraud</i>"»<br /><br />Yes, just like Yahweh is indeed a biased fraud. Suddenly, when it suits you, you become an atheist!<br /><br />«"<i>evidenced merely by the fact that you nitpick at what I post and leave the skeptics' posts</i>"»<br /><br />Yes, exactly. Just like Yahweh attacks skeptics and leaves his believers alone. Not so much fun when you're on the receiving end of that, is it?<br /><br /><br />«"<i>Engage me in debate, unless you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious iconoclast that you are.</i>"»<br /><br />I've noticed that you've stopped engaging <i>me</i> in debate. Must be because you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious hypocrite that you are.<br /><br />Hahahaha! I win!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78110741750337139002009-08-12T17:17:19.438-04:002009-08-12T17:17:19.438-04:00SConnor:
Why do you assume just b/c I'm expos...SConnor:<br /><br />Why do you assume just b/c I'm exposing atheist/skeptic arguments against theology as bunk, that I'm being mean? Perhaps this is a last ditch effort to prop up your failing arguments that can't stand on their own merits? Show me where I've criticized others' faults. Why are you using a dcotrine you bleive to be false as a weapon against anyone? Unless you believe it has merit, this wouldn't make any sense...Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83063606149481311712009-08-12T17:10:58.853-04:002009-08-12T17:10:58.853-04:00The God of Bluemongoose:
You are a biased fraud, ...The God of Bluemongoose:<br /><br />You are a biased fraud, evidenced merely by the fact that you nitpick at what I post and leave the skeptics' posts, overflowing with derrogatory personal remarks, alone. Where are your cries for ethics in that regard?<br /><br />Engage me in debate, unless you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious iconoclast that you are.Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64383438851604369962009-08-12T17:04:35.761-04:002009-08-12T17:04:35.761-04:00Gandolf:
Your use of the adjective "stupidly...Gandolf:<br /><br />Your use of the adjective "stupidly". Now, now. don't prop up your failing arguments with derrogatory comments. In the end they don't make what you post any less/more incorrect. But, gee, I thought you skeptics were above that sort of thing.<br /><br />Reverting. Ah, ye olde circular reasoning argument. Except you let sketpics off the hook when they use the "human reasoning is the onnly way to verify reason" circular reasoning. Gandolf, there are questions about the Bible and Christianity going on here. Where else would we look for the answers but in the Bible? Would we look for answers to math questions in a history book?<br /><br />Recall I said human reasoning is not our ultimate and sole source for verifying authenticity. You are deliberately confusing issues.<br /><br />L.O.L. The joy of atheistic indoctrination and ignorance.Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47706920771241937182009-08-12T16:45:16.666-04:002009-08-12T16:45:16.666-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52406807963928094962009-08-11T22:53:27.857-04:002009-08-11T22:53:27.857-04:00But, yes, if we trully did completely rely on Yahw...<i>But, yes, if we trully did completely rely on Yahweh, there would be no hunger, cancer and unclean energy.</i><br /><br />Funniest thing I read all day.<br /><br />Tell you what Blue, how about you and all the other Yahweh worshipers, assuming you can find any that worship the same version of Yahweh as yourself, all pack yourselves onto an isolated commune somewhere. There, totally reliant on Yahweh for the providence of your food, medicine and energy, I'm sure you'll flourish!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404448630593670371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87537335738380413002009-08-11T17:32:55.386-04:002009-08-11T17:32:55.386-04:00«"Mind you, I'm not saying free will is a...«"<i>Mind you, I'm not saying free will is a bad thing b/c it's not</i>"»<br /><br />That which leads to eternal damnation is not a bad thing?<br /><br />«"<i>The Enemy's goal is to hurt God.</i>"»<br /><br />Satan's goal is to serve God.<br /><br />Job 2:6 -- <i>The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands;</i><br /><br />«"<i>And what better way to do that than to take away what yahweh loves the most, His kids?</i>"»<br /><br />The only way Satan can "take away" something from God is if Satan is more powerful than God himself. Nice. Maybe we should worship Satan instead!<br /><br />«"<i>Simple, have a relationship with Yahweh. Just talk to Him; He'll tell you.</i>"»<br /><br />Or talk to yourself and pretend that you're talking to Yahweh and that Yahweh talks back to you. Make-believe!<br /><br />It's all the same thing: lying to yourself.<br /><br />«"<i>For instance, the Mormon god used to be a human, following successors of other humans turned gods, ad infinitum (put to rest by Isaiah 43:10).</i>"»<br /><br />LOL. The same verse contradicts Christianity!<br /><br />«"<i>Their trinity is different, in that it also has different parameters: the holy father, holy mother and Jesus.</i>"»<br /><br />No, their tritheistic beliefs are exactly the same as yours: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.<br /><br />«"<i>They also believe Satan (Lucifer) is Jesus' brother.</i>"»<br /><br />Supported by Job 1:6. (Lucifer is not Satan. "Lucifer" is from Isaiah 14:12, and is not a supernatural being except in late Christian exegesis.)<br /><br />«"<i>The fact that God has "significantly more knowledge" doesn't change the fact that He won't step on our free will to make us do something or see things His way. Violating that would trully be the mark of a despot.</i>"»<br /><br />But God does trample on free will in the bible, and will trample on our free will after we die. So it follows that God is indeed a despot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66189066128844405822009-08-11T17:11:56.027-04:002009-08-11T17:11:56.027-04:00Scott:
Human fallibility and misinterpretation. ...Scott:<br /><br />Human fallibility and misinterpretation. The reason I was glad you recognized the problem here is b/c I want you to come away from the "human reasoning is the only way we verify reason" position. Sometimes skeptics stuck in this perspective try to say things like, "the authenticity of the Bible can't be proved through human reasoning, so that de facto makes it bunk". I'm just eliminating that option here.<br /><br />"I can't help but notice that it sounds like..." Ah, ah, ah. You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you agreed about the pesonal bias thing. What you personally perceive could be the incorrect way to perceive.<br /><br />"God's personality seems..." There you go again assuming. Scott, you'd be better served by just asking why questions to clarify perception issues. Try that one again.<br /><br />"Last time I checked, the 75%..." Again, you're arguing from the human perspective angle. How do you know 75% is an exact figure? And can we be sure of the authenticity of the poll if it is conducted by humans?<br /><br />100% sure. Notice how you said, "If I had felt 100% sure.." Why do you believe your personal emotions are a foundation on which to build anything?<br /><br />Gravity. So b/c humans may not know the answer, does that mean there is ultimately no answer?<br /><br />Whether or not I need to verify anything. This is where reliance on Yahweh, the maker of knowledge and truth, comes in handy. But, yes, if we trully did completely rely on Yahweh, there would be no hunger, cancer and unclean energy. Sadly, this is what happens when we declare our total autonomy, separate and apart from God. Ask me why!<br /><br />Other means: Reliance and dependence on Yahweh.<br /><br />Communication. "This knowledge comes with responsibility." Be careful not to blend lines here. Having responsibility doesn't mean God must force us to see things His way. Remember the free will issue.<br /><br />Gas grill. Your illustration implies God does nothing to stop atrocities. But how do you know that if all you use is your finite human perception? How can you judge the perspective of the infinite? Back to your illustration. What if I did everything within my power to warn the individual about the potential dangers of misuse, and he/she ignored me?<br /><br />False dilemma. Why do you assume God doesn't give clear choices? What if this was an issue of despite God giving the clearest explanations, people refused to accept them? It again becomes a free will issue.<br /><br />Responsibility of God. Why do you assume you're using my definition of God? What if you were adding to it in order to get something different than what I originally described to you? The fact that God has "significantly more knowledge" doesn't change the fact that He won't step on our free will to make us do something or see things His way. Violating that would trully be the mark of a despot.Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45802394180030736422009-08-11T16:32:10.003-04:002009-08-11T16:32:10.003-04:00Walt:
Multitude of Christian denominations. Ther...Walt:<br /><br />Multitude of Christian denominations. There are two things at work here: 1) human free will; and 2) the Enemy (Satan, Lucifer, etc. that cause problems in this area. Mind you, I'm not saying free will is a bad thing b/c it's not; however, where ever you have free will, then you have the potential for evil. People have the free will to choose to follow God or not; and then you can factor in the fallibility issue, so there's the potential for human misrepresentations. <br /><br />(Ref. 2) The Enemy's goal is to hurt God. And what better way to do that than to take away what yahweh loves the most, His kids? So how do you keep yourself from being deceived? Simple, have a relationship with Yahweh. Just talk to Him; He'll tell you. I know, sounds too simple. "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise."<br /><br />These two ingredients make for a proverbial witch's brew of confusion. But, again, just b/c there are problems doesn't mean there are no solutions.<br /><br />Mormonism. Debating this issue takes quite a while b/c there's a lot of ground to cover. I'll give you a sample: It starts with the fact that Mormons don't worship the same god as Christians do. How do I know that? B/c their God has different parameters than "Yahweh of the Bible" does. For instance, the Mormon god used to be a human, following successors of other humans turned gods, ad infinitum (put to rest by Isaiah 43:10). Their trinity is different, in that it also has different parameters: the holy father, holy mother and Jesus. They believe Jesus is God's son, but that Jesus is really just the archangel Michael. They also believe Satan (Lucifer) is Jesus' brother. <br /><br />That may whet your apetite or scare you off altogether. But there's more where that came from, should you choose this is the route you want to go. Let me know.Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45460190230614809752009-08-11T16:01:16.919-04:002009-08-11T16:01:16.919-04:00Bob:
Sarcasm. Your opinion. Are you being too s...Bob:<br /><br />Sarcasm. Your opinion. Are you being too sensitive? But I don't see you championing this viewpoint when it may seem as thought others are being sarcastic to theists or worse, mudslinging. Isn't the statement that what I wrote is condescending, tiring and pedestrian all of those things in and of itself?<br /><br />Blendng lines. You're getting somewhere now. Talking about two separate issues is different from trying to say subject A is the same as subject B. I ask the questions I do and phrase my debates the way I do in an effort to flush this out. Sometimes the individuals I have these kinds of discussions with don't even realize they are blending lines. So it becomes necessary to illuminate the problem.<br /><br />"Secret". I'll give you a hint: Go back over my discussions in this thread, particularly with Walt.<br /><br />Your earthshaking comment. Notice how you prefaced this statement with "I have a feeling..." You know where I'm going with this.Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67238948913906590312009-08-11T01:15:39.968-04:002009-08-11T01:15:39.968-04:00«"So are you talking about a random number on...«"<i>So are you talking about a random number on your hard drive, or did you spell randnum2 correctly? Also, does this have to do with the hard drive identifier?</i>"»<br /><br />Heh. It's obvious that God doesn't tell you anything at all, or you wouldn't have to ask me, now would you?<br /><br />The filename is "randnum2". The file itself contains a sequence of 1024 ASCII characters which are all numeric digits. <br /><br />«"<i>God changing His mind. You're adding your own narrative again.</i>"»<br /><br />Nah.<br /><br />«"<i>You conveniently leave out the sin part, thereby absolving humans (especially you) of their responsibility in this equation.</i>"»<br /><br />Why should sin, regardless of who is responsible for it, matter? God did change his mind.<br /><br />Of course, you have no follow up about humans being responsible for sin. God knows all; therefore God is responsible for all.<br /><br />«"<i>Drowning. Again, you conveniently omit the sin element here.</i>"»<br /><br />God sins? Sure, I agree that God sinned against his children by murdering them. But that's still irrelevant to the point that God changed his mind.<br /><br />«"<i>How do you know God changed His mind on the Abe and Isaac situation? What if He knew what would happen from the jump and thereby never changed His mind?</i>"»<br /><br />If he knew what would happen, the whole point of the exercise was meaningless.<br /><br />So God must have changed his mind.<br /><br />«"<i>What happens here is that human perception is clouded from knowing God's intentions b/c of our limited perceptions.</i>"»<br /><br />Comes to the same thing.<br /><br />«"<i>Showing off in Egypt. What if it wasn't showing off; but, rather, if God had done a small miracle here, then no one would have been convinced it was Him at the wheel?</i>"»<br /><br />In other words, showing off. You have no follow up.<br /><br />«"<i>One and three. If you read from the very beginning of Genesis, you'll see references to the Trinity.</i>"»<br /><br />You see no such thing -- unless you add your own narrative from your own skewed opinion.<br /><br />«"<i>Jesus. Why do you assume God actually changed His mind here? If He operates outside of the entity we know of as time, then He would have known what was going to happen from beginning to the end of time and would have no need to change His mind.</i>"»<br /><br />If God operates outside of time, he had no need to wait for thousands of years to do it. So he must have changed his mind.<br /><br />«"<i>The Bible is a record of God's fickleness, or you just keep throwing out your own narratives to serve your purposes.</i>"»<br /><br />The bible is a record of God's fickleness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57505609671210429252009-08-10T21:24:19.461-04:002009-08-10T21:24:19.461-04:00I just read John's post on the nature and valu...I just read John's post on the nature and value of free will- great, great post.<br />I just wanted to comment on David Wood's claims. First, I would like to know if Adam & Eve had this same "epistemic distance" that Satan had between him and God? Second, if being in God's unmediated presence would cause no one to sin, meaning, everyone would be saved. Its obvious God doesn't want everyone to be saved. David is claiming that God knows that being in his unmediated presence no one would ever disobey him. If God knows all this stuff, it comes back to the point that he could have simply skipped this life altogether instead of pretending he doesn't know who will love him as a result of moral freedom.Ignerant Phoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13166860576010836032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90698618492623860552009-08-10T19:55:14.481-04:002009-08-10T19:55:14.481-04:00~continued~
Your illustration. Why do you assume ...~continued~<br /><br /><i>Your illustration. Why do you assume this is an either/or situation?</i><br /> <br />So I take it you can't address the logic of my argument either? <br /><br /><i>Evidence the Bible is evil. What are you talking about? Skeptics can't say there is evil if there is no God.</i> <br /> <br />Oh here we go.<br /> <br />1. Read this carefully -- it is abundantly clear you can not digest information: I do NOT believe in your god-concept -- the one you constructed from your own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.<br /><br />2. There is NO objective evidence that the bible is god's word.<br /><br />3. I am NOT trying to prove god is evil. <br /><br />4. When we say god is evil we are referencing your bible and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in scripture that are antithetical to your god-<b>concept</b>, being ALL-loving ALL-merciful, benevolent, etc. It is NOT an admission of god's existence; it is NOT an affirmative assertion that god is evil.<br /><br />5. It is an admission and my contention that : bible-god is a fictional character and this fictional god-character is an evil entity based on what the bible says about his character and by his own actions and commands in those works of FICTION.<br /><br />It baffles me why you can NOT grasps this simple notion.<br /><br />6. So just to be clear I do not believe in your personal christian god-concept. Any argument used against your god-concept is provisional. We are attacking your god-<b>concept</b> by pointing out inconsistencies, gaps of logic or contradictions of <b>YOUR DEFINITION</b> of god that you have fabricated by your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and stunted imaginings. <br /><br />7. Furthermore it should be understood that unbelievers are debating in the hypothetical. For example: "IF" god is ALL-good why does he let children suffer in vile unimaginable ways? Or "IF" god is an intelligent designer why was he morbidly negligent in creating an umbilical cord that can choke the baby in utero that can lead to death or brain damage causing the baby to suffer for the rest of her life. <br /><br />8. So NOT only do you have objective evidence that the bible is god's word you also have a bible that is inconsistent about god's character and will. <br /><br />Do...you...understand?<br /><br /><i>The fact that you prop your erroneous arguments with mudslinging speaks volumes.</i> <br /> <br />The FACT that you continue to respond to my salient and germane arguments means you find them worthy of responding to and the FACT that you continue to respond (even with allegations of mudslinging and cussing) shows YOU ARE willing to respond -- You're just NOT willing to respond to the 56 arguments that you insisted were "<i>all important points</i>". <br /> <br />Again you continue to spin your wheels offering lame contradictory excuses. <br /><br />--S.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37903110495202482102009-08-10T19:51:19.022-04:002009-08-10T19:51:19.022-04:00~continued~
Justifying quitting. What does justif...~continued~<br /><br /><i>Justifying quitting. What does justify my discontinuing our conversation in a prior thread is your lack of respect for others.</i><br /><br />And yet you feel compelled to continue on vomiting up more whiny excuses, and respond to my <i>other</i> aguments, <b>which begs the question, if you can address me here and now with the <i>unbearable strain of my cuss words hovering above your burning ears</i>, why can't you address the original 56 arguments? Hmmmmmmmm?</b><br /><br /><i>Why do you believe what I brought is infantile/kindergarten? You must do your follow-ups.</i><br /><br />I did -- wooooosh right over your head. <br /><br /><i>2 wrongs don't make a right. Again, you blend lines. Even John says he won't put up with disrespect. But ultimately you blend lines on issues again. I left b/c you were disrespectful by using cuss words and were mudslinging. You make it seem like you're trying to be benevolent here, but the you continue on with your diatribes. Pathetic, infantile, etc. You can use all the derogatory adjectives you want...</i><br /> <br />I contend that my arguments are germane and salient. Using words like "pathetic" and "infantile" are a matter of FACT because positing the kindergarten argument of little Johnny does it too -- is infantile. Additionally, I'm not issuing forth belligerent ad hominems in lieu of relevant arguments. In FACT you already conceded that my arguments were very important: <i>Again, I don't want to minimize your statements b/c they are all important points and your questions deserve answers...</i><br /> <br /><i>but to the quiet reader of our debates, you come off in a negative light b/c you prove over and over again that when your arguments tank, you will resort to making defamatory comments.</i><br /> <br />I already covered this: Even, IF every atheist, unbeliever and skeptic in the world was a F-ing belligerent -- frothing-at-the-mouth -- mother-F-er, it still does NOT make your imaginary god-character or your delusional claims anymore credible. More B.S. diverging tactics and extraneous claptrap -- on your part -- that does NOTHING to further your lame arguments. <br /><br />You should also know -- I am NOT an atheist. I have a belief in an afterlife and maintain there could be some sort of ultimate reality but unlike you I do not psychotically profess it to be truth, nor do I wallow in massive delusional -- using god's supposed voice as my own -- making unsubstantiated, interpretive claims about god's will and character. <br /><br />Furthermore (considering your virgin ears) my use of profanity is just another spice in my stew. What's more, even if I laced my questions, arguments and and rebuttals with a tapestry of vulgarities, using profane verbiage every other word -- it would not abolish the relevancy of my arguments. <br /><br />But again here you are responding to me anyway. If you can respond to me here, <i>while the taste of those disrespectful cuss words and pseudo-insulting words like "infantile" (oh my!) still linger in your mouth</i>, why can't you respond to the 56 -- "all important" -- arguments you were bound and determined to address?sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70284570737503773762009-08-10T19:48:45.011-04:002009-08-10T19:48:45.011-04:00Prior dialogue. Your opinion.
...AND evidence -...<i>Prior dialogue. Your opinion.</i> <br /> <br />...AND evidence -- one only has to go back to the original posts to see All you offered were lame, trite responses that never really addressed the issues at hand just so you could say you responded.<br /><br /><i>Putting up with frothing at the mouth. Again, I dare you to go up to your teachers/professors or even go into you local grocery store and start yelling out obscenities and insults. See how long you stay on the premises.</i><br /><br />Inaccurate analogy. I routinely have lively and informal discussions with friends and relatives using cuss words, which do NOT distract from the salient and germane arguments presented. Furthermore, I routinely put up with christian guests who can be disrespectful on other informal blogs. Again you only use this as a lame whiny excuse: <i>oh my virgin ears burn, whaaaaaaa.</i><br /> <br /><i>"I don't care if people use profanity..." Notice how you prefaced your statement with "I don't care". In a relativistic society, just b/c you don't care doesn't mean others don't care; and you can't force your standards on anybody else. Also, you can't say what I bring is B.S. b/c there are not definitive boundaries on legitimacy in a world with no God.</i><br /><br />Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. Your argument was: <i>You wouldn't put up with that in real life, so why should I put up with it here? </i><br /><br />I countered that feeble argument by sharing with you that, I do indeed put up with it -- real life and on other informal blogs. It was NOT an argument insinuating that you should put up with it, because I put up with it. Can...you...grasp...that?<br /> <br />I could care less if you put up with it or not. But evidently it hasn't stopped you from replying to me altogether, which tells me that the cussing really isn't the reason why you stopped replying to my 56 comments and arguments. It's because you are incapable of really addressing them. Claiming virgin ears is just a B.S. excuse. <br /><br /><i>Circular reasoning. Just trying to better understand where you were coming from.</i><br /><br />Evidently your intellectual capacity can NOT absorb that what you are doing is using circular reasoning to justify your supposed knowledge of god. Take your time, obviously it is a difficult concept to wrap your brain around.<br /> <br />But you do admit circular reasoning is impotent by comparing it to human reason -- again thanks for that sophomoric argument. <br /><br /><i>John Loftus. So are you admitting there's a double standard?</i><br /> <br />No -- what I am qualifying is that your shallow argument that john "does it too", is an infantile argument -- the equivalent of a kindergartner saying, little johnny did it too, as if it make your position acceptable. <br /> <br />If anything this is John's playground -- he is the catalyst to these debates where he starts them, may jump in and out, but then let's other people make valid arguments that he agrees with letting them speak for themselves.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.com